Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/9/2026 - City Council - Agenda -Regular Amended Agenda Monday, February 9, 2026, 6:30 PM Work Session, 5:30 PM Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 Regular Session, 6:30 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 WORK SESSION 1. Call to Order 2. New Business A. Discussion Items Review of City Water and Sewer Projects - Larado Robinson, Director of Water/Sewer Department 3. Adjournment REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Awards and Recognitions 4. Consent Agenda A. Citizen Comments Comments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already having a public hearing at the same meeting. B. Minutes Consider acceptance of the January 12, 2026, Work Session and Regular Meeting minutes. 5. Old Business A. Amendment to the City Code Page 1 of 362 Consider adoption of ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 66 Signs of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA (Advertised in the December 25, 2025, and January 1, 2026, editions of The Salem Times-Register). (Planning Commission recommended approval.) The public hearing was held at the January 12, 2026, meeting and the first reading of the ordinance was continued to the February 9, 2026, meeting. B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider adoption of ordinance on second reading for the request of Khalili LLC, property owner, and Jay Patel or Assigns, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 1000 Electric Road (Tax Map #221-2-1) from RB Residential Business District to HBD Highway Business District to allow the installation of fuel tanks and a canopy for operation of a gasoline station (Approved on first reading at the January 12, 2026, meeting.) 6. New Business A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance on first reading for the request of McDonald’s Corporation, property owner, to rezone the property located at 101 Electric Road (Tax Map # 80 – 4 – 1) from HBD Highway Business District with condition to HBD Highway Business District. (Advertised in the January 22 and 29, 2026, issues of The Salem Times-Register.) (Planning Commission recommended approval.) B. Resolution 1517 - Opposing Virginia General Assembly House Bill 804 Consider adoption of Resolution 1517 opposing Virginia General Assembly House Bill 804 and related legislation. C. Resolution 1518 - Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan - 2025 Update Consider adoption of Resolution 1518 accepting the Roanoke Valley–Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan - 2025 Update. D. Resolution 1519- Temporary Main Street Closure for Olde Salem Days 2026 Consider adoption of Resolution 1519 requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approve City Council’s request for the temporary closure of Main Street on September 12, 2026, for the Olde Salem Days event. E. Taxicabs- Setting of Public Hearing Date Consider setting the date for a public hearing in accordance with Section 98-94 of THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, for the issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for the next twelve (12) months related to taxicabs operating in the City. (Suggest March 23, 2026). F. Salem Band Boosters Donation Consider a request from the Salem Band Boosters for a donation of $715.05, equal to the amount of admissions tax paid in connection with the annual Blue Ridge Regional Page 2 of 362 High School Band Competition, held September 20, 2025, at Salem Stadium. G. Appropriation of Funds- Gateway Signage Request to re-appropriate grant funds awarded by the Community Foundation and funding provided by Roanoke County for gateway signage. Audit - Finance Committee H. Appropriation of Funds- Capital Reserve Policy Request to appropriate and transfer capital reserve. Audit - Finance Committee I. Appropriation of Funds- Water Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Request to appropriate Water Fund reserves for Advanced Metering infrastructure (AMI). Audit - Finance Committee J. Appropriation of Funds- Downtown Plan Improvements Request to appropriate Revenue Sharing and local match for Downtown Improvements on Roanoke Boulevard. Audit - Finance Committee K. Approval of Contract with AEP Energy Partners (Amended Item) Request to approve and execute a contract with AEP Energy Partners Audit-Finance Committee An amended Council report has been added to this item. L. Appropriation of Funds- E911 State Grant Request to appropriate E-911 state grant funds for 911 Communication Center telephone services. 7. Closed Session Hold a closed session in accordance with Section 2.2-3711 (A)(5) of the 1950 Code ofVirginia, as amended, for discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community. 8. Adjournment Page 3 of 362 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Monday, January 12, 2026 at 6:30 PM Work Session, 5:45 PM Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 Regular Session, 6:30 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 WORK SESSION 1.Call to Order A work session of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 N. Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, on January 12, 2026, at 5:45 p.m., there being present the following members of said Council to wit: Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor; Anne Marie Green, Vice-Mayor; Council members; Byron Randolph Foley, H. Hunter Holliday, and John Saunders; with Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding; together with Chris Dorsey, City Manager; Rob Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Rosie Jordan, Director of Finance; Crystal Williams, Assistant to the City Manager; and Laura Lea Harris, Deputy Clerk of Council; and the following business was transacted; 2.New Business A.Discussion Items Council Retreat Follow-Up Discussion A discussion was facilitated by Mr. Dorsey, Mr. Light, and Mrs. Williams as follow-up to the Council Retreat which was held on September 29, 2025. Council discussed the draft mission statement that was developed and concurred that they wished to make this their official mission statement. The core values of Council were noted as well as strengths, challenges, and opportunities for the City of Salem. Mr. Light acknowledged that a review of the Economic Development Strategic Plan was presented at the retreat by Tommy Miller, Director of Economic Development. Discussion was held on collective Council goals. Mayor Turk Item #4.B Date: 2/09/2026 Page 4 of 362 requested an update from the Water Department at a future work session on the status of the City water and sewer projects. 3. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Turk adjourned the meeting at 6:27 p.m. REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was called to order at 6:30 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor; Anne Marie Green, Vice-Mayor; Councilmembers: Byron Randolph Foley, Hunter Holliday, and John Saunders; with Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding together with Chris Dorsey, City Manager; Rob Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Rosie Jordan, Director of Finance; Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator; Mike Stevens, Director of Communications; and Jim Guynn, City Attorney. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Bid Opening, Awards, Recognitions Mayor Turk asked Matthew Dade Hutchison and Deputy Drew Sturgill to come forward. She noted that the City of Salem Sheriff's Office hired Matthew Dade Hutchison on January 4, 2026. She shared that he came to Salem from the Western Virginia Regional Jail where he was employed for three and a half years as a jailor. Mayor Turk added that Hutchison was a Salem High School graduate in 2020 and that he resides in Salem. Accompanying Hutchison this evening was Field Training Deputy Drew Sturgill. Mayor Turk and Council welcomed Hutchison to the Salem Sheriff's Office family. 4. Consent Agenda A. Citizen Comments Comments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already having a public hearing at the same meeting. John Breen, 142 Bogey Lane, spoke in opposition to Senate Bill 97, which is currently awaiting action in the Senate Local Government Committee and has a corresponding bill already passed by the House. He cited concerns that state-mandated housing growth requirements and related zoning and density changes could negatively affect neighborhood character, infrastructure, public safety, traffic, and property values. Mr. Breen questioned the local benefits of the required housing increase, expressed concern over potential state override of local land-use decisions, and requested that Council adopt a resolution opposing the bill and convey that position to state legislators. Page 5 of 362 Mayor Turk noted that this action was being considered by the state representatives and that City Council had no power over this potential action. She emphasized that Council was asking the citizens to contact their state representatives with their concerns on this and that Council appreciated the support of the citizens in this. B. Minutes Consider acceptance of the December 11, 2025, Work Session and Regular Meeting minutes. The minutes were approved as written. 5. Old Business There was no Old Business this evening. 6. New Business A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing and consider adoption of ordinance on first reading for the request of Khalili LLC, property owner, and Jay Patel or Assigns, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 1000 Electric Road (Tax Map #221-2-1) from RB Residential Business District to HBD Highway Business District to allow the installation of fuel tanks and a canopy for operation of a gasoline station (Advertised in the December 25, 2025, and January 1, 2026, issues of The Salem Times-Register). (Planning Commission recommended approval.) Mayor Turk requested that Ms. Wines share information on this item for the benefit of the public. Ms. Wines shared that 1000 Electric Road is a 0.647 -acre tract of land, which sits in the RB Residential Business District. This was formerly a Speedway gas station and convenience store. Residential Business does not allow for gasoline stations currently. When Speedway left in 2023, they removed the gas canopies and the gas tanks, which ultimately removed their grandfathering to allow a gas station at thi s location. In order to have a gas station here, they are requesting to rezone the property to Highway Business District to allow for that use, as well as the convenience store. Mayor Turk opened the public hearing. Steve Drake, representing Wainwright & Co. Realtors, in Salem. He noted that JFM Hotels, C Stores will renovate an existing gas station and convenience store site that has operated in this location since the 1980s. The project does not introduce a new use. The renovation represents more than $2 million in acquisition and improvement costs and is expected to create 14 full- and part-time jobs. Prepared food sales are projected at $500,000 in the first year, generating approximately $30,000 in tax revenue for the City. In addition, an estimated $700,000 in annual taxable sales from Page 6 of 362 general merchandise is expected, producing additional 1% local sales tax revenue, exclusive of fuel, tobacco, alcohol, lottery, and deli sales. Mayor Turk closed the public hearing. Hunter Holliday motioned to adopt the ordinance on first reading for the request of Khalili LLC, property owner, and Jay Patel or Assigns, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 1000 Electric Road (Tax Map #221-2-1) from RB Residential Business District to HBD Highway Business District to allow the installation of fuel tanks and a canopy for operation of a gasoline station. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renée Turk Nays: None Abstaining: None B. Amendment to the City Code Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 66 Signs of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA (Advertised in the December 25, 2025, and January 1, 2026, editions of The Salem Times-Register). (Planning Commission recommended approval.) Recommend holding the public hearing and continuing first reading of the ordinance to the February 9, 2026, meeting. Mayor Turk asked Ms. Wines to provide background information on this item. Ms. Wines noted that staff had concerns regarding the increased use of strip, string, and accent lighting throughout the City and the potential impact on the character and brightness of key corridors, including West Main Street and downtown areas. She expressed that while accent lighting can enhance buildings, widespread and unregulated use could detract from corridor aesthetics. Staff initially proposed amendments to restrict certain types of lighting in specific districts; however, further discussion indicated the issue is more complex than a single regulatory change. Staff recommends taking additional time to study the matter and to provide opportunities for input before moving forward with any proposed regulations. Staff requested that Council continue the first reading of the ordinance. Mayor Turk opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak. Mayor Turk closed the public hearing. Randy Foley motioned to continue the first reading of the ordinance to the February 9, 2026, meeting. Hunter Holliday seconded the motion. Page 7 of 362 Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renée Turk Nays: None Abstaining: None Mayor Turk noted that the public hearing had been held this evening and requested that citizens send any comments, concerns, or feedback to Council or Community Development. She reiterated that there would not be a second public hearing. C. Resolution 1516 -Constitutional Officer Salary Supplement Consider adoption of Resolution 1516 approving a 5% salary supplement for those individuals duly sworn as Constitutional Officers effective January 1, 2026, in the City of Salem not already receiving a 5% Virginia Retirement System (VRS) supplement from the City which is required for others per the Virginia General Assembly, Chapter 822, 2012 Acts of Assembly. City Manager Dorsey noted that this item related to the provisions of Act 822 of the 2012 General Assembly, which addressed retirement contributions for constitutional officers. Under the Act, constitutional officers employed in a constitutional office as of June 30, 2012, were eligible to receive a 5% retirement supplement to offset changes requiring employees to pay their own Virginia Retirement System (VRS) contributions. Due to ambiguity regarding the status of certain local constitutional officers at that time, staff was requesting that Council consider a one-time action to apply the 5% supplement to all constitutional officers sworn in effective January 1, 2026, in order to ensure fairness and consistency. This action was noted as a one-time adjustment and not a change to ongoing policy. Randy Foley motioned to adopt Resolution 1516 approving a 5% salary supplement for those individuals duly sworn as Constitutional Officers effective January 1, 2026, in the City of Salem not already receiving a 5% Virginia Retirement System (VRS) supplement from the City which is required for others per the Virginia General Assembly, Chapter 822, 2012 Acts of Assembly. Anne Marie Green seconded the motion. Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renée Turk Nays: None Abstaining: None D. Boards and Commissions Consider appointments to various boards and commissions. Randy Foley motioned to reappoint Steve Poff for a five-year term ending January 1, 2031, to the Board of Appeals (USBC Building Code); to appoint Chris Roberts, upon CPMT approval, as an additional alternate for the Court Services Unit to the Community Policy Management Team; and to reappoint Tommy Miller as a full member for a four-year term ending February 3, 2030, and Crystal Willimas as an alternate for a four-year term ending February 3, 2030, to the Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority. Anne Marie Green seconded the motion. Page 8 of 362 Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Ren ée Turk Nays: None Abstaining: None 7. Adjournment Mayor Turk noted informational postings found on the City website for the benefit of the public and encouraged them to utilize this resource. The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: H. Robert Light Renée Ferris Turk Clerk of Council Mayor Page 9 of 362 Item #: 5.A. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the City Code Consider adoption of ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 66 Signs of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA (Advertised in the December 25, 2025, and January 1, 2026, editions of The Salem Times-Register). (Planning Commission recommended approval.) The public hearing was held at the January 12, 2026, meeting and the first reading of the ordinance was continued to the February 9, 2026, meeting. SUBMITTED BY: Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In the City of Salem, signage is permitted in accordance with the regulations outlined in Chapter 66 of the City’s code. There has been an influx of strip lighting as the cost of such lighting has decreased and the ease of installation has increased. Due to those factors, clarification of the sign ordinance is warranted. Strip lighting is defined as lights in a strip used to outline any portion of a structure. Such lights include, but are not limited to, tubes of neon, LED lights, or fluorescent lights that is typically displayed as a continuous band around the exterior perimeter of a structure. Previously, these lights have not had to be permitted through the sign application process. However, as the market has made these lights more accessible, review of the application of these lights is necessary. This type of lighting will continue to be treated as holiday decor if it is not clear or white, but now may only be displayed from November 15th through January 15th. If the lighting is clear or white, then it will be treated as a sign and will be allowed in the following instances. 1. The property must be zoned HBD, Highway Business District or BCD, Business Commerce District. 2. Lights must be static, meaning no movement. 3. One linear foot of strip lighting will equal one-half square foot of signage applied Page 10 of 362 to the total allowable signage for the parcel. 4. Lighting in or around windows will be considered a window sign. In addition, the sign ordinance does not define gas pump signage. It is proposed that gas pump signs be defined and limit the sign size to a maximum of 2 square feet per pump. Almost every gas pump has a logo or sign that, historically, has not been included in the allowable signage calculation. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends consideration of the ordinance on first reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Chapter 66 Sign ordinance changes for strip lighting amended by PC-1.2025 Page 11 of 362 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND, REVISE, AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 66, SIGNS, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, SECTION 66-11, APPLICATION OF CHAPTER TO CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS; ARTICLE IV, PERMITTED SIGNS BY USE AND DISTRICT, SECTIONS 66-105, PERMITTED SIGNS AND 66-107, PROHIBITED SIGNS; AND ARTICLE V, DEFINITIONS, SECTION 66-151, DEFINITIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO SIGNS. SIGNS, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA BE AMENDED, REVISED, AND REORDAINED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Sec. 66-11. Application of chapter to certain types of signs. Subject to the provisions of section 66-5, the following signs may be allowed without a sign permit and may not be included in the determination of the type, number, or area of permanent signs allowed within a zoning district, provided such signs comply with the regulations in this section, if any. A. Official traffic signs. B. Signs erected by the city including regulatory signs. C. Public signs: Signs required by the city for utilities, including traffic, utility, safety, railroad crossing, and identification signs for public facilities. D. Legal notices. E. Real estate signs which advertise the sale, rental, or lease of the premises upon which such signs are located only, not exceeding six square feet in area in residential districts and not exceeding 32 square feet in area in any other district. F. Temporary signs, as approved as a grand opening event by the city manager, or his designee, in accordance with section 66-105, permitted signs (temporary signs). G. Non-illuminated incidental signs, including incidental window signs, not exceeding two square feet. "Open" signs may be illuminated. H. Minor signs: Minor signs shall not be electronic nor illuminated. No minor sign may include commercial messaging. No minor sign shall be located on public property or in the right-of-way. Minor signs shall not exceed 24 square feet. Minor signs shall include: 1. Political campaign signs. 2. Temporary directional signs. 3. Signs inside a building, or other enclosed facility, which are not meant to be viewed from the outside, and are located greater than three feet from the window. 4. Holiday and other temporary seasonal decorations (strip lighting allowed only from November 15 through January 15). 5. Personal expression and ideological signs. Page 12 of 362 6. Address signs: Stating address, number and/or name of occupants of the premises. 7. Security and warning signs: These limitations shall not apply to the posting of conventional "no trespassing" signs in accordance with state law. 8. Private drive signs. 9. Signs denoting the architect, engineer or contractor, when placed upon work under construction. I. Flags: Non-commercial flags, flags of any nation, state, local, or other geopolitical entity, or flags not related to or used to draw attention to a commercial business, product, or service. 1. Flags and flagpoles shall not be located within any right-of-way, unless meets the requirements of allowed encroachments as prescribed by the Handbook to Downtown Salem. 2. Flags, containing commercial messaging, shall be considered temporary signs. See section 66- 105(A). J. Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings and date of construction when cut into any masonry surface or when constructed of bronze or other incombustible materials. K. Signs which are a permanent architectural feature of a building or structure, existing at the time of adoption of this chapter. L. Art and murals, provided such signs do not contain any commercial messaging. M. Vehicular signs that meet the following conditions: 1. The primary purpose of such a vehicle or trailer is not the display of signs. 2. The signs are magnetic, decals or painted upon an integral part of the vehicle or equipment as originally designed by the manufacturer, and do not break the silhouette of the vehicle. 3. The vehicle is in operating condition, currently registered and licensed to operate on public streets when applicable, and actively used in the daily function of the business to which such signs relate. 4. The vehicle is not parked within 20 feet of the right-of-way. (Ord. of 2-13-2017(2); Ord. of 10-7-2024(1)) Article IV – Permitted Signs By Use and District Sec. 66-105. Permitted signs. A. Permitted signs by type. Awning Sign: All awning frames and supports shall be of metal. All awnings shall be constructed and erected so that the lowest portion thereof shall be not less than eight feet above the level of the sidewalk or established street grade. AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, COL RB, CUD, TBD, DBD*, CBD, HBD, BCD, LM, HM, PUD Not allowed 12 square feet *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards   Canopy Sign: All canopy frames and supports shall be of metal. All canopies shall be constructed and erected so that the Page 13 of 362 lowest portion thereof shall be not less than eight feet above the level of the sidewalk or established street grade. AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, COL RB, CUD, TBD, DBD*, CBD, HBD, BCD, LM, HM, PUD Not allowed 12 square feet *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards   Drone Sign: Not allowed in any district   Electronic Sign: No more than one electronic sign shall be allowed per business. All electronic signs shall be freestanding. All electronic signs must utilize a header cabinet. All electronic signs shall be required to hold a static image for a minimum duration of eight seconds. Faster rates are prohibited. Transition times shall be no more than one second facing the same travelled way. All electronic signs shall have an automatic light adjustment feature to regulate brightness. Any electronic sign shall be oriented away from residential properties so as to avoid light trespass. Video, flashing, strobe effects, "storybook" advertising, consecutive messages, or similar effects are prohibited. Electronic signs may not be used as off-premises, temporary, or portable signs. Electronic signs displaying the current time or date shall be kept accurate. If this requirement is not complied with, the sign in question shall be promptly repaired or removed. AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, RB, DBD, TBD, COL, PUD, CBD CUD HBD, BCD, LM, HM Not allowed Freestanding only. Maximum height of 8 feet. Maximum total area of 24 square feet. Must be placed a minimum of 150 feet from any residential district. Freestanding only. For lots or parcels with less than 75 feet along their principal street frontage maximum of 24 square feet. For all others maximum of 60 square feet. Freestanding Sign, Pole Sign: All letters, figures, characters or representations in cutout or irregular form maintained in conjunction with, attached to or superimposed upon any freestanding sign shall be safely and securely built or attached to the sign structure and shall comply with all requirements in section 66-71. No freestanding sign shall be nearer than two feet to any other sign, building or structure, except those freestanding signs parallel to and adjacent to a wall or structure. For monument or ground signs see monument section below. AG RSF & COL RMF, RB, PUD MHP CUD, CBD, HBD, BCD, LM, HM TBD, DBD* Maximum total area of 24 square feet not to exceed 8 feet in height. One sign allowed for religious, charitable, institutional, recreational and other public and semipublic uses: Maximum total area of 24 square feet not to exceed 8 feet in height. May have second sign on secondary street frontage if 100 feet from first sign One sign allowed. Maximum area 24 square feet not to exceed 10 feet in height. One allowed, maximum of 15 square feet and shall not exceed 15 feet in height. For commercial or industrial uses one freestanding sign placed 100 feet apart and not visible from the same point along the same street. Additional frontage may have additional signage. If frontage is less than 75 feet sign shall not exceed Maximum area of 24 square feet and shall not exceed 5 feet in height. *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards Page 14 of 362 and both signs are not visible from same point along same street. 24 square feet. Frontage 75 to less than 150 feet sign shall not exceed 100 square feet. Frontage 150 feet or greater sign shall not exceed 150 square feet. May contain more than one sign not to exceed the max. allowable size. No sign shall exceed 25 feet in height.   Location Sign: AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, COL, RB, PUD TBD, DBD*, CUD, CBD, HBD, BCD, LM, HM Not allowed Location signs up to 24 square feet in total sign area, provided such sign may be erected only for a business which does not have frontage on an urban primary arterial, urban minor arterial or urban collector as designated by the state department of transportation, provided such sign shall not exceed 25 feet in height, and provided such sign is at least 400 feet from any other sign which refers to the same establishment or premises and 100 feet from any other freestanding sign on the same property. *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards Manual Changeable Copy Sign: Permitted only when integrated into a freestanding, marquee, wall, or portable sign. All manual changeable copy signs must utilize header space except portable signs.   Marquee Sign: Such signs shall be located only above the principal public entrance of a building facing a public street or parking lot. No marquee shall be wider than the entrance it serves, plus two feet on each side thereof. Sign height: No portion of a marquee sign shall extend vertically above the eaveline. The lowest edge of the marquee sign shall be at least eight feet above the finished grade. AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, RB, CUD, COL, PUD, CBD, LM, HM HBD, BCD TBD, DBD* Not allowed Per sign face: Frontage less than 75 feet sign shall not exceed 24 square feet. Frontage 75 feet to less than 150 feet sign shall not exceed 100 square feet. Frontage 150 feet or greater sign shall not exceed 150 square feet. Sign may contain more than one sign not to exceed the maximum allowable Maximum area of 24 square feet per sign face. *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards Page 15 of 362 size. No sign shall exceed 25 feet in height.   Mechanical Movement & Revolving Sign: Mechanical movement and revolving signs may not be used as off-premises, temporary, or portable signs. AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, CUD, LM, HM, COL, PUD RB, TBD, DBD*, CBD, HBD, BCD Not allowed Barber pole style only, maximum six square feet. *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards   Menu Sign: AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, RB CBD, HBD TBD, DBD, CUD, BCD, LM, HM, COL, PUD Not allowed Two up to 36 square feet each and 75 feet from a residential district. Not allowed Monument Sign: Shall be supported and permanently placed by embedding, anchoring, or connecting the sign in such a manner as to incorporate it into the landscape or architectural design scheme. So long as the supporting structure does not contain any messaging or is a continuation of the color scheme of the sign it will not be counted as part of the sign area. All letters, figures, characters or representations in cutout or irregular form maintained in conjunction with, attached to or superimposed upon any monument sign shall be safely and securely built or attached to the sign structure and shall comply with all requirements in section 66-73. No monument sign shall be nearer than two feet to any other sign, building or structure, except those signs parallel to and adjacent to a wall or structure. The maximum height shall be eight feet from the ground, the maximum length shall be 15 feet, and the maximum thickness shall be three feet. The maximum sign face area shall cover no more than 75% of the sign. AG RSF & COL RMF, RB, PUD, MHP CUD, CBD, HBD, BCD, LM, HM TBD, DBD* Maximum total area of 24 square feet not to exceed 4 feet in height. One allowed for religious, charitable, institutional, recreational and other public and semipublic uses: Maximum total area of 24 square feet not to exceed 4 feet in height. May have second sign on secondary street frontage if 100 feet from first sign and both signs are not visible from same point along same street. Maximum total area of 24 square feet not to exceed 6 feet in height. One monument sign placed 100 feet apart and not visible from the same point along the same street. Sign may contain more than one sign not to exceed the maximum allowable size. Maximum total area of 120 square feet. No sign shall exceed 8 feet in height. Maximum total area of 24 square feet not to exceed 4 feet in height. May have second sign on secondary street frontage if 100 feet from first sign and both signs are not visible from same point along same street. *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards   Multi-Tenant Sign: Page 16 of 362 AG, RSF & COL, RMF, MHP, PUD CUD, CBD, HBD, BCD, LM, HM RB, TBD, DBD* Not allowed Maximum of 150 square feet based on building frontage. For commercial or industrial uses one freestanding sign placed 100 feet apart and not visible from the same point along the same street. Sign may contain more than one sign not to exceed the maximum allowable size. No sign shall exceed 25 feet in height. Maximum area of 24 square feet. Sign may contain more than one sign not to exceed the maximum allowable size. *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards   Mural Sign: AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, RB, CUD, CBD, HBD, BCD, COL, PUD TBD, DBD*, LM, HM Not allowed Any mural sign shall comply with the regulations of wall signs. *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards   Off-Premise Signs: Not allowed in any district   Portable Sign, A-Frame or Sandwich Board Sign, Pedestal Sign: Cannot be electronic nor have mechanical movement. AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, RB, COL, PUD CUD, TBD, DBD*, CBD, HBD, BCD, LM, HM Not allowed Maximum area of 12 square feet. Shall comply with the regulations of temporary signs. *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards   Projecting Sign: Shall project no more than four feet from the face of the building and no closer than four feet from the curbline of a public street. Lowest edge shall be at least eight feet about the finished grade. AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, RB, CUD, CBD, HBD, BCD, LM, HM, COL, PUD TBD, DBD* Not allowed *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards   Roof Sign: Not allowed in any district Page 17 of 362   Snipe Sign: Street Clock: This section shall not apply to signs which display lighted messages and animation, such as those which display time, temperature and other information. No person shall erect more than one street clock for any place of business at any one location. Street clocks, including the frames, braces and supports thereof, shall be constructed of incombustible material. The dial of a street clock shall be not less than 30 inches nor more than 40 inches in diameter. Any glass forming a part of a street clock or the sign thereon shall be safety glass or plate glass at least one-quarter-inch thick, and in case any single piece or pane of glass has an area exceeding three square feet, it shall be constructed of wired glass, securely held in place. Any movable part of a street clock, such as the cover or service opening, shall be securely fastened by metal hinges. Street clocks supported on the corner of any building or structure at the intersection of two streets, or within six feet of the corner, shall not be less than 12 feet nor more than 20 feet above the sidewalk and shall not project from the face or wall of the building or structure in any direction more than six feet. All clocks erected on the exterior of any building or structure shall comply with the requirements set forth in this article, regulating the sign type, in all respects, whichever applies. Each street clock shall keep accurate time and, if this requirement is not complied with, the street clock in question shall be promptly repaired or removed. *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards   Strip Lighting, Strand Lighting, String Lighting, Accent Lighting, Bistro Lighting, Fairy Lighting, Party Lighting: Must be clear or white in color and static. Includes accent lighting along architectural elements incorporated into the style or function of a building. Lighting in or around windows is considered a window sign. AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, RB, DBD, TBD, CBD, LM, HM HBD, BCD Not allowed Allowed, one linear foot of strip lighting shall equal one-half square foot of signage. Temporary Sign, Balloons, Balloon Sign, Banner, Flag, Inflatable Sign, Pennants, Streamers: No temporary sign shall exceed 24 square feet in area. Every temporary sign shall be attached with adequate supports in accordance with good engineering practice. The advertisement contained on any temporary sign shall pertain only to the business, industry or pursuit conducted on or within the premises on which such sign is erected or maintained. A string of pennants or row of streamers shall be considered one sign. Up to four temporary signs may be displayed for a grand opening event with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee, and may not require a permit. Temporary signs for a grand opening event may be displayed two weeks prior to the event and shall be removed within two weeks after the event. Page 18 of 362 day the permit is issued. Must be removed within 5 days of permit expiration. *See Sec. 66-105(C) Additional Standards day the permit is issued. Must be removed within 5 days of permit expiration. Wall Sign, Gas Station Canopy Sign, Gas Pump Sign, Mansard Sign, Skeleton Sign, Channel Letter Sign: No wall sign, skeleton sign or mansard sign shall cover wholly or partially any opening nor project beyond the ends of the structure to which it is attached. No wall sign or skeleton sign shall project above the wall to which it is attached. No mansard sign or skeleton sign shall project above the ridge line of the immediate mansard roof plane to which it is attached. No wall sign, skeleton sign or mansard sign shall extend more than 18 inches beyond the building line and shall not be attached to a structure at a height of less than nine feet above the sidewalk or ground. Each Gas Pump shall be permitted a total of 2 square feet of sign area. AG RSF, COL RMF, RB, PUD MHP TBD, DBD* CUD, CBD, BCD, LM, HM HBD Maximum 24 square feet Religious, charitable, institutional, recreational, and other public/ semipublic uses up to 24 square feet One per business. Maximum of six square feet per frontage. Religious, charitable, institutional, recreational, and other public/ semipublic uses up to 24 square feet Maximum 15 square feet For commercial or industrial uses one sign allowed. Additional frontage may have additional signage. If frontage is less than 75 feet, sign shall not exceed 24 square feet. Frontage 75 to less than 150 feet, sign shall not exceed 100 square feet. Frontage 150 feet or greater, sign shall not exceed 150 square feet. Sign may contain more than one sign not to For commercial or industrial uses one sign allowed. Additional frontage may have additional signage. If frontage is less than 75 feet, sign shall not exceed 24 square feet. Frontage 75 to less than 150 feet, sign shall not exceed 100 square feet. Frontage 150 feet or greater, sign shall not exceed 150 square feet. Sign may contain more than one sign not to For the purposes of this section, primary building side is a building's side associated with its public entrance. If there are multiple public entrances, the primary building side shall be determined by the Administrator. Allowable square footage shall be configured by 1.5 square feet of sign area per 1 linear foot of primary building side. Maximum allowable Page 19 of 362 exceed the maximum allowable size. *See § 106- 105 C. Additional Standards exceed the maximum allowable size. For multi-unit buildings: wall signs shall be based on unit frontage at a one square foot per one linear foot ratio square footage per individual sign area shall be the lesser of 0.5 square foot of sign area per 1 linear foot of primary side length, or 150 square feet. No more than 4 wall signs shall be allowed.   For buildings containing 3 or more units: wall signs shall be based on 1 square foot of sign area per 1 linear foot of primary side. Any additional side(s) oriented to the right of way and/or public parking lot may have an additional sign not to exceed the size of the sign associated with the primary building side. Window Sign including strip lighting in and around windows: AG, RSF, RMF, MHP, COL, PUD RB, CUD, TBD, DBD, CBD, HBD, BCD, LM, HM Not allowed Area: A maximum of 25% of each window area of any single building frontage may be used for signs. These signs shall be non-illuminated nor electronic. Each linear foot of strip lighting will count as one-half square foot of signage. Page 20 of 362   Vehicular Sign Permitted illumination. Illumination Types: There shall be no light trespass into any residential district. Additional standards. Signs located in the downtown business districts may have additional standards and/or differing regulations as set forth in the Handbook to Downtown Salem. Signs located along the Roanoke Valley Greenway system. Sec. 66-107. Prohibited signs. A. No sign shall have flashing, intermittent or animated illumination or lights of changing degrees of intensity, unless each interval in the cycle is a minimum of eight seconds and the sign does not constitute a traffic hazard. This section shall not be construed to prohibit signs which display time, temperature and other information, provided all other requirements of this chapter are met. B. The following devices and locations shall be specifically prohibited: 1. Signs located in such a manner as to obstruct or otherwise interfere with an official traffic sign, signal or device, or obstruct or interfere with a driver's view of approaching, merging or intersecting traffic. 2. Except as provided for elsewhere in this Code, signs encroaching upon or overhanging public right-of-way. No sign shall be attached to any utility pole, light standard, street tree or any other public facility located within the public right-of-way. 3. Signs which blink, flash or are animated by lighting in any fashion that would cause such signs to have the appearance of traffic safety signs and lights, or municipal vehicle warnings from a distance. 4. Portable signs except as provided in section 66-105 (portable signs). Page 21 of 362 5. Vehicular signs except as provided in section 66-11. 6. Balloons, streamers, inflatables, pennant strings, flags (except as allowed in section 66-11), pinwheels, and like displays, except as provided in section 66-105 (temporary signs). 7. No off-premise sign shall be located within the corporate limits of the city. 8. No existing off-premise sign shall be converted to an electronic sign, billboard or multi-vision board. 9. Abandoned signs. 10. Snipe signs. Signs shall only be attached to utility poles in conformance with state and utility regulations and the requirements of this chapter. 11. Signs which prevent free ingress or egress from any door, window, fire escape, or that prevent free access from one part of a roof to any other part. No sign other than a safety sign shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. 12. Signs which emit smoke, visible vapors, particulate matter, sound, odor or contain open flames. 13. Reflective signs or signs containing mirrors. 14. Vehicular interactive signs. 15. Signs incorporating beacon lighting. 16. Any banner or sign of any type suspended across a public street, without the permission of the owner of the property and the city. 17. Roof signs. 18. Signs for any home occupation. 19. Signs erected without the permission of the property owner, with the exception of those authorized or required by local, state, or federal government. 20. Any sign containing information which states or implies that a property may be used for any purpose not permitted under the provisions of the city zoning ordinance. 21. Signs that exhibit statements, words, or pictures of obscene or pornographic subjects. 22. Any sign that promotes illegal activity. 23. Neglected signs. 24. Strip lights or strip lighting except as allowed in Section 66-105 or as holiday décor in Section 66-11. Page 22 of 362 Article V - Definitions Sec. 66-151. Definitions. Abandoned sign: A sign which has not identified or advertised a current business, service, owner, product, or activity for a period of at least 60 days. Address sign: A sign that designates the street number and/or street name for identification purposes, as designated by the city. (Also known as: nameplate sign.) Awning: A cloth, plastic, or other nonstructural covering that projects from a wall for the purpose of shielding a doorway or window. An awning is either permanently attached to a building or can be raised or retracted to a position against the building when not in use. Awning sign: Any sign painted on, or applied to, an awning. Balloon sign: A lighter-than-air, gas-filled balloon, tethered in a fixed location, which contains an advertisement message on its surface or attached to the balloon in any manner. Banner: Any cloth, bunting, plastic, paper, or similar non-rigid material attached to any structure, staff, pole, rope, wire, or framing which is anchored on two or more edges or at all four corners. Banners are temporary in nature and do not include flags. Building frontage: The maximum linear width of a building measured in a single straight line parallel, or essentially parallel, with the abutting public street or parking lot. Canopy: A structure other than an awning made of fabric, metal, or other material that is supported by columns or posts affixed to the ground and may also be connected to a building. Canopy sign: Any sign that is part of, or attached to a canopy. Clearance: The distance above the walkway, or other surface if specified, to the bottom edge of a sign. This term can also refer to a horizontal distance between two objects. Drone: An unmanned aircraft or ship, weighing less than 55 pounds, that can navigate autonomously, with or without human control or beyond line of sight. Drone sign: Any sign that is part of, or attached to a drone. Electronic sign: An electrically activated changeable sign whose variable content capability can be electronically programmed or controlled. Flag: Any sign printed or painted on cloth, plastic, canvas, or other like material with distinctive colors, patterns, or symbols attached to a pole or staff and anchored along only one edge or supported or anchored at only two corners. Freestanding sign: A sign supported by structures or supports that are placed on, or anchored in, the ground; and that is independent and detached from any building or other structure. The following are subtypes of freestanding signs: Page 23 of 362 Monument sign: A freestanding sign, generally having a low profile where the base of the sign structure is on the ground or a maximum of 12 inches above the lowest point of the ground adjacent to the sign such that the sign has the appearance of a solid base. (Also known as ground sign.) Pole sign: A freestanding sign that is permanently supported in a fixed location by a structure of one or more poles, posts, uprights, or braces from the ground and not supported by a building or a base structure. Gas station canopy: A freestanding, open-air structure constructed for the purpose of shielding service station islands from the elements. Gas station canopy sign: Any sign that is part of, or attached to, the vertical sides of the gas station canopy roof structure. For the purposes of this chapter, gas station canopy signs shall be considered wall signs. Gas pump sign: A sign affixed to a functional gasoline pump. Ghost sign: An old hand-painted advertising sign that has been preserved on a building for an extended period of time. The sign may be kept for its nostalgic appeal, or simply indifference by the owner. May be approved by planning commission as a landmark sign. Government/regulatory sign: Any sign for the control of traffic or for identification purposes, street signs, warning signs, railroad crossing signs, and signs of public service companies indicating danger or construction, which are erected by or at the order of a public officer, employee or agent thereof, in the discharge of official duties. Historic district: A district or zone designated by a local, state, or federal government, within which buildings, structures, and/or appurtenances are deemed important because of their association with history, or because of their unique architectural style and scale. Holiday decorations: Signs or displays including lighting which are a non-permanent installation celebrating national, state, and local holidays, religious or cultural holidays, or other holiday seasons. (Also known as seasonal decorations.) Strip lighting that is not clear or white in color is considered holiday décor. Illuminated sign: A sign with electrical equipment installed for illumination, either internally illuminated through its sign face by a light source contained inside the sign, externally illuminated by a light source aimed at its surface, or contains luminous tubes as part of the sign proper. Illumination: A source of any artificial or reflected light, either directly from a source of light incorporated in, or indirectly from an artificial source. External illumination: Artificial light, located away from the sign, which lights the sign, the source of which may or may not be visible to persons viewing the sign from any street, sidewalk, or adjacent property. Halo illumination: A sign using a three-dimensional message, logo, etc., which is lit in such a way as to produce a halo effect. (Also known as back-lit illumination.) Page 24 of 362 Internal illumination: A light source that is concealed or contained within the sign and becomes visible in darkness through a translucent surface. Message center signs, digital displays, and signs incorporating neon lighting shall not be considered internal illumination for the purposes of this chapter. Neon illumination: A sign using a neon tube, or other visible light-emanating gas tube, that can bend to form letters, symbols, or other graphics. Incidental sign: A sign that displays general site information, instructions, directives, or restrictions that are primarily oriented to pedestrians and motor vehicle operators who have entered a property from a public street. These signs shall not contain any commercial advertising. Incidental window sign: Signs displayed in the window displaying information such as the business' hours of operation, credit institutions accepted, commercial and civic affiliations, and similar information. These signs shall be informational only and shall not contain a commercial message. Inflatable sign: A sign that is an air-inflated object, which may be of various shapes, made of flexible fabric, resting on the ground or structure and equipped with a portable blower motor that provides a flow of air into the device. Interactive sign: An electronic or animated sign that reacts to a person's behavior or electronic signals of motor vehicle drivers. Light trespass: Light emitted by a lighting installation, which extends beyond the boundaries of the property on which the installation is sited. Location sign: A sign which directs attention to the approximate location of an establishment from which the advertised product or service may be obtained. Luminance: An objective measurement of the brightness of illumination, including illumination emitted by an electronic sign. Mansard sign: Any sign attached to a mansard roof. Manual changeable copy sign: A sign or portion thereof on which the copy or symbols are changed manually through placement or drawing of letters or symbols on a sign face. Marquee: A permanent structure, other than a roof or canopy, attached to, supported by, and projecting from a building and providing protection from the elements. Marquee sign: Any sign attached to a marquee for the purpose of identifying a use or product. If attached to a theater, performing arts center, cinema, or other similar use, it may also advertise films or productions. Mechanical movement sign: A sign having parts that physically move rather than merely appear to move as might be found in a digital display. The physical movement may be activated electronically or by another means, but shall not include wind-activated movement such as used for banners or flags. Mechanical movement signs do not include digital signs that have changeable, programmable displays. Page 25 of 362 Memorial sign: A memorial plaque or tablet, including grave markers or other remembrances of persons or events, which is not used for a commercial message. Menu sign: A permanent sign for displaying the bill of fare available at a restaurant, or other use serving food, or beverages. Portable A-frame style signs shall be considered portable signs and not menu signs. Minor sign: A non-illuminated, non-electronic, non-commercial sign not exceeding 24 square feet in area. Multi-tenant sign: A freestanding or wall sign used to advertise businesses that occupy a shopping center or complex with multiple tenants. Multi-vision board: An outdoor unit with a slatted face that allows many different copy messages to revolve at intermittent intervals. Mural: A large picture/image (including but not limited to painted art) which is painted, constructed, or affixed directly onto a vertical building wall, which may or may not contain text, logos, and/or symbols. Mural sign: Any sign painted on, or applied to, a mural. Neglected sign: Any sign and sign structure that is allowed to deteriorate by failure to maintain the sign in its original condition. Nit: A photometric unit of measurement referring to brightness. One nit is equal to one cd/m2 . Nonconforming sign: A sign that was legally erected and maintained at the effective date of this chapter, or amendment thereto, that does not currently comply with sign regulations of the district in which it is located. Official traffic sign: Official highway route number signs, street name signs, and other traffic signs erected and maintained on public highways and roads in the interest of public safety or for the regulation of traffic. Off-premises sign: An outdoor sign whose message directs attention to a specific business, product, service, or other commercial activity not contained on the premises upon which the sign is located or is attached to a mode of transportation, including pedestrians. (Also known as a third-party sign, billboard, outdoor advertising, general advertising sign, promobikes, trailer sign, and mobile billboard. For regulations for decal space and wrap advertising on vehicles see section 66-11.) On-premises sign: A sign whose message and design relate to an individual business, profession, product, service, event, point of view, or other commercial or non-commercial activity sold, offered, or conducted on the same property where the sign is located. Pennant: A triangular or irregular piece of fabric or other material, commonly attached in strings or strands, or supported on small poles intended to flap in the wind. Permanent sign: A sign attached or affixed to a building, window, or structure, or to the ground in a manner that enables the sign to resist environmental loads, such as wind, and that Page 26 of 362 precludes ready removal or movement of the sign and whose intended use appears to be indefinite. Personal expression sign: An on-premises sign that expresses an opinion, interest, position, or other non-commercial message. Portable sign: A sign designed to be transported or moved and not permanently attached to the ground, a building, or other structure, not to include temporary signs. Sandwich board sign: A type of freestanding, portable, temporary sign consisting of two faces connected and hinged at the top and whose message is targeted to pedestrians (Also known as A-frame sign.) Private drive sign: A sign indicating a street or drive which is not publicly owned and maintained and used only for access by the occupants of the development and their guests. Projecting sign: A building-mounted, double-sided sign with the two faces generally perpendicular to the building wall, not to include signs located on a canopy, awning, or marquee. (Also known as blade sign.) Public art: Items expressing creative skill or imagination in a visual form, such as painting or sculpture, which are intended to beautify or provide aesthetic influences to public areas or areas which are visible from the public realm. Public sign: A sign erected or required by government agencies or utilities, including traffic, utility, safety, railroad crossing, and identification signs for public facilities. Reflective sign: A sign containing any material or device which has the effect of intensifying reflected light. Revolving sign: A sign which revolves in a circular motion; rather than remaining stationary on its supporting structure. Roof sign: A building-mounted sign erected upon, against, or over the roof of a building, other than a mansard sign. Scoreboard: A sign contained within an athletic venue and intended solely to provide information to the attendees of an athletic event. Security sign: An on-premises sign regulating the use of the premises, such as a "no trespassing," "no hunting," or "no soliciting" sign. (Also known as warning sign.) Sign: Any object, device, display, or structure, or part thereof, visible from a public place, a public right-of-way, any parking area or right-of-way open to use by the general public, which is designed and used to attract attention to an institution, organization, business, product, service, event, or location, and shall include any announcement, declaration, demonstration display, illustration or insignia used to advertise or promote the interests of any person when the sign is placed out-of-doors in view of the general public, by any means involving words, letters, figures, designs, symbols, fixtures, logos, colors, illumination, or projected images. Strip lighting attached to the architectural elements of a building is considered a sign. The term does not include public art, architectural elements incorporated into the style or function of a Page 27 of 362 building, or flags of any nation, state, or other geopolitical entity not related to a commercial business, product or service. The term "sign" also does not include the display of merchandise for sale on the site of the display. Sign includes the sign faces as well as any sign supporting structure. Sign area: The total dimensions of a sign surface used to display information, messages, advertising, logos, or symbols. See section 66-75 for standards for measuring sign area. Exclusions: Sign area shall not include frames or structural elements, provided such frames or structural elements are clearly structural and are not principally meant to draw attention to the sign. Further, sign area shall not include the opposite face of any double-faced sign, provided such faces are parallel or are at no more than a 45-degree angle with the obverse face. Sign face: The part of the sign that is or can be used for the sign area. The sign area could be smaller than the sign face. Sign height: The vertical dimension of a sign as measured using the standards in section 66-77. Sign supporting structure: Poles, posts, walls, frames, brackets, or other supports holding a sign in place. Snipe sign: A sign tacked, nailed, posted, pasted, glued, or otherwise attached to trees, poles, stakes, fences, public benches, streetlights, or other objects, or placed on any public property or in the public right-of-way or on any private property without the permission of the property owner. (Also known as bandit sign.) Streamers: A display made of lightweight, flexible materials, consisting of long, narrow, wavy strips hung individually or in a series, with or without a logo or advertising message printed or painted on them and typically designed to move in the wind. Street clock: Any timepiece erected on the exterior of any building or structure and extending more than 18 inches over the street right-of-way and primarily for the convenience of the public, and shall be substantially a clock and not for advertising matter. Street frontage: The side or sides of a lot abutting on a public street or right-of-way. Strip Lighting: Lights in a strip used to outline any portion of a structure other than a structure that is used lawfully as a residential use type defined in Section 106-602.3. Such lights include, but are not limited to, tubes of neon, LED lights, or fluorescent lights left exposed or enclosed in a translucent structural case that is typically displayed as a continuous band around the exterior perimeter or a portion of the exterior perimeter of a structure. Strip lighting used in or around a window is considered a window sign. Also known as accent lighting, strand lighting, string lighting, bistro lighting, fairy lighting and party lighting. Structural trim: The molding, battens, capping, nailing strips, latticing, aprons and platforms which are attached to the sign structure. Temporary sign: A sign constructed of cloth, canvas, vinyl, plywood, fabric, or other lightweight material not well suited to provide a durable substrate or, if made of some other material, is neither permanently installed in the ground nor permanently affixed to a building or Page 28 of 362 structure which is permanently installed in the ground. A temporary sign can be displayed for no more than 30 consecutive days at one time. However, "temporary sign" shall not include any sign displaying price information for gasoline, diesel fuel or other products sold on the premises, nor shall it include portable signs. Vehicular sign: Any sign attached to or displayed on a vehicle. Any such vehicle shall, without limitation, be considered to be used for the primary purpose of advertising if it fails to display current license plates, up to date inspection sticker, if the vehicle is inoperable, if evidence of paid-to-date personal property taxes cannot be made available, if the sign alters the standard design of such vehicle, or if the vehicle is parked within 20 feet of the right-of-way. (Also known as: wrap advertising.) For promobikes, mobile billboards, trailer signs and vehicle decal space, see off-premise signs. Wall sign: A building-mounted sign which is either attached to, displayed on, or painted on an exterior wall in a manner parallel with the wall surface. A sign installed on a false or mansard roof is also considered a wall sign. (Also known as: fascia sign, parallel wall sign, or band sign.) Channel letter sign: A sign consisting of fabricated or formed three-dimensional letters, individually applied to a wall, which may accommodate a light source. Skeleton sign: Individual letters, symbols, logos and other designs mounted on a parapet wall, building or other structure. Window sign: Any sign that is applied, painted, or affixed to a window, or placed inside a window, within three feet of the glass, facing the outside of the building, and easily seen from the outside. Customary displays of merchandise or objects and material without lettering behind a store window are not considered signs. Incidental window signs shall not be considered a window sign. Strip lighting used in or around a window shall be considered a window sign. Page 29 of 362 B. Sign type examples: Page 30 of 362 2. General commercial scenario. (Ord. of 2-13-2017(2); Ord. of 6-14-2021(2)) Page 31 of 362 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage. Page 32 of 362 Item #: 5.B. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider adoption of ordinance on second reading for the request of Khalili LLC, property owner, and Jay Patel or Assigns, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 1000 Electric Road (Tax Map #221-2-1) from RB Residential Business District to HBD Highway Business District to allow the installation of fuel tanks and a canopy for operation of a gasoline station (Approved on first reading at the January 12, 2026, meeting.) SUBMITTED BY: Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Zoning: RB Residential Business District Land Use Plan Designation: Commercial Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Gasoline Station The subject property (1000 Electric Road) consists of an approximately 0.647-acre tract of land which currently sits within the RB Residential Business District zoning designation. The property formerly housed a Speedway gasoline station, but the fuel tanks and corresponding canopy were removed after its closure in late 2023. Because a gasoline station is not a permitted use in the RB Residential Business District, the removal of fuel tanks and the canopy also removed the legal nonconforming status of that particular use. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from RB Residential Business District to HBD Highway Business District in order to reinstall fuel tanks and a canopy for the operation of a gasoline station, a use permitted by right in the latter zoning classification. If the property is successfully rezoned, an engineered site plan may be required in order to verify that the appropriate amount of parking and landscaping is provided on-site. Page 33 of 362 FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends consideration of the ordinance on second reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 1000 Electric Road rezoning application 2. Neighbor notification map 3. December 10 2025 PC Minutes 4. Council meeting owner notification letter - 1000 Electric Road T.M.221-2-1 5. Legal Ad 12.25 6. Legal Ad 1.1.26 7. Rezoning Ordinance 1000 Electric Road T.M.221-2-1 Page 34 of 362 Application Data for Application Number: Z25-30089 Application Type Zoning Application Sub-Type Rezone Applicant Circle K Location 1000 electric rd Applicant Address 1000 Electric rd Property Owner Salem,VA,24153 Owner Address Tax Parcel , Section Question Answer Details and Scope of Work Please provide a detailed description of the work associated with this application. We will install new canopy and tank new landscaping which they did remove in 2023 /2024 rest of will remain same as it just sign will change Existing Structure Info Year Built Property Description Number of Stories Number of Rooms Number of Bedrooms Number of Bathrooms Type of Roof Type of Exterior Type of Basement Finished Square footage of Primary Building Parcel Information Lot Size Acres Lot Size SQFT Zoning Classification Legal Description PID Rezoning Details Please advise current Zoning type RB - Residential Business District Please advise desired future Zoning type HBD - Highway Business District Please advise current use Close gas stations Please describe in detail the proposed use of the property We would like to open this as new Circle K Install new canopy and Tank Please advise designation from the Future Land Use map Commercial Are there proffers associated with this rezoning application? Yes Application Information Page 35 of 362 Rezoning Details Is the building or parcel in a district currently designated as historic No If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Department of Historic Resources Is the subject property located within the Floodplain District? No If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Floodplain Ordinance Have you provided a conceptual plan of the proposed development, including general lot configurations and road locations? Yes Are the proposed lot sizes compatible with existing parcel sizes in the area? Yes If this is for a commercial rezoning, please answer the following questions No Data No Data What provisions will be made to ensure safe and adequate access to the subject property? This franchise gas station will open 24 hours with safe environment How will the traffic impact of this development be addressed? Traffic will remain same and it’s on traffic lights section so it will maintain Describe why the proposed use is desirable and appropriate for the area. What measure will be taken to assure that the proposed use will not have a negative impact on the surrounding vicinity? This was nice running gas station as Wilco now It’s close location we would like to open as Circle K so it will have no negative impact, yes it will be positive impact What type of signage is proposed for the site?Same as when it was Speedy gas station Have architectural/building elevations been submitted with this application? No Page 36 of 362 City of Salem, VA www.actDataScout.com Date Created: Created By: via DataScout OneMap ® This map should be used for reference purposes only and should not be considered a legal document. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this product, the publisher accepts no responsibility for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage alleged to be suffered by anyone as a result of the publication of this map and the notations on it, or as a result of the use or misuse of the information provided herein. anonymous 11/24/2025 1 inch = 303 feetAbutters for 1000 Electric Rd Page 37 of 362 Acres: 40.32 Legal: TRACT B 40.32 AC G E DRIVES & CONTROLS INC RESUBD Address: 1501 ROANOKE BLVD 24153 - 750 ELECTRIC RD 24153 RPID: 3767 1) PHOENIX SALEM INDUSTRIAL INVESTORS LLC Parcel: 189-2-1 Acres: 1.022 Legal: PT LT 37 SEC 2 REV MAP FAIRFIELD Address: 1003 ELECTRIC RD 24153 RPID: 5008 2) WHITE-419 LLC Parcel: 221-1-3 Acres: 6.384 Legal: LT B-2 6.384 AC RESUBD FOR NEW CENTURY DEVELOPMENT CO LLC Address: 1025 ELECTRIC RD 24153 - 1027 ELECTRIC RD 24153 - 1151 ELECTRIC RD 24153 - 1 RPID: 5009 3) FEEDING AMERICA SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA Parcel: 221-1-4 Acres: 0.647 Legal: LT 18 SEC 2 REV MAP FAIRFIELD Address: 1000 ELECTRIC RD 24153 RPID: 5014 4) KHALILI LLC Parcel: 221-2-1 Acres: 0.926 Legal: 40325 SQ FT ELECTRIC RD & CAMPBELL ST Address: 1100 ELECTRIC RD BLK 24153 RPID: 5016 5) NOLEN PROPERTIES 1100 ELECTRIC ROAD LLC Parcel: 221-2-11 Acres: 0.459 Legal: LT 17 SEC 2 REV MAP FAIRFIELD Address: 1015 HIGHLAND RD 24153 RPID: 5017 6) FIREBAUGH LORI T Parcel: 221-2-2 Acres: 0.459 Legal: LT 16 SEC 2 REV MAP FAIRFIELD Address: 1023 HIGHLAND RD 24153 RPID: 5018 7) NOLEN PROPERTIES 1023 & 1037 HIGHLAND LLC Parcel: 221-2-3 Acres: 0.459 Legal: LT 15 SEC 2 REV MAP FAIRFIELD Address: 1033 HIGHLAND RD 24153 RPID: 5019 8) NOLEN, REBA S Parcel: 221-2-4 Acres: 0.459 Legal: LT 14 SEC 2 REV MAP FAIRFIELD Address: 1037 HIGHLAND RD 24153 RPID: 5020 9) NOLEN PROPERTIES 1023 & 1037 HIGHLAND LLC Parcel: 221-2-5 Acres: 0.543 Legal: LT 8 SEC 1 REV MAP FAIRFIELD Address: 1036 HIGHLAND RD 24153 RPID: 5034 10) TILLEY, KENNETH ROLAND Parcel: 221-3-5 Date Created: Created By:anonymous 11/24/2025 via DataScout OneMap ® Page 38 of 362 Acres: 0.36 Legal: S PT LT 9 SEC 1 REV MAP FAIRFIELD Address: 1026 HIGHLAND RD 24153 RPID: 5035 11) TILLEY, RUSSELL GLENN Parcel: 221-3-6 Acres: 0.355 Legal: N PT LT 9 SEC 1 REV MAP FAIRFIELD Address: 1022 HIGHLAND RD 24153 RPID: 5036 12) RAINES, TINA HORN Parcel: 221-3-7 Acres: 6.309 Legal: 6.309 AC VAC & COMB PLAT FOR JUDAH LAND LLC Address: 1506 ROANOKE BLVD 24153 RPID: 5037 13) JUDAH LAND LLC Parcel: 221-3-8 Date Created: Created By:anonymous 11/24/2025 via DataScout OneMap ® Page 39 of 362 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, December 10, 2025, at 6:30 PM Work Session, 5:30 PM, Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 Regular Session, 6:30 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 WORK SESSION 1. Call to Order A work session meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 5:30 p.m., on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, there being present the following members of said Commission, to wit: Denise P. King, Jackson Beamer, Mark Henrickson, and Nathan Routt, constituting a legal quorum, with Chair King, presiding; together with Christopher Dorsey, City Manager and Executive Secretary ex officio member of said Commission, Charles E. Van Allman Jr., Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner, and Haskell C. Brown, III, on behalf of Jim Guynn, City Attorney, Reid Garst was absent; and the following business was transacted: Chair Denise King reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the Commission to hold a work session. The work session meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. A discussion was held on the following items: 2. New Business A. Items for the December agenda 1. 1000 Electric Road Rezoning 2. Amendment to the City Code 3. Amendment to the PC bylaws regarding Designated Agents B. Items from the January agenda 1. 101 Electric Road rezoning 3. Adjournment Page 40 of 362 Chair King adjourned at 6:13 p.m. REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 6:30 p.m., on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, there being present the following members of said Commission, to wit: Denise P. King,, Jackson Beamer, Mark Henrickson, and Nathan Routt, constituting a legal quorum, with Chair King, presiding; together with Christopher Dorsey, City Manager and Executive Secretary ex officio member of said Commission, Charles E. Van Allman Jr., Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner, and Haskell C. Brown, III, on behalf of Jim Guynn, City Attorney, Reid Garst was absent, and the following business was transacted: Chair King called the December meeting of the City of Salem Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. Reporting that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the Commission to hold a public meeting. A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll call Mr. Routt - Here Mr. Henrickson - Here Mr. Beamer - Here Mr. Garst - Absent Chair King – Here 2. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Chair King asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission. Hearing none, Chair King accepted the minutes as presented. 3. New Business A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold a public hearing to consider the request of Khalili LLC, property owner, and Jay Patel or Assigns, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 1000 Electric Road (Tax Map # 221-2-1) from RB Residential Business District to HBD Highway Business District to allow the installation of fuel tanks and a canopy for operation of a gasoline station. Page 41 of 362 Proper legal notice has been given and all adjoining property owners have been notified of said hearing. Chair King invited the applicant to come forward to present information regarding the request and asked that all speakers state their name and address for the record. Jay Patel, 216 Minnie Bell Lane, Vinton, Virginia 24179, introduced himself and stated that he intended to open a Circle K convenience store at the subject property. He referenced his prior experience developing and operating a Circle K Travel Plaza at Exit 109 off Interstate 81 in Radford, noting his involvement in demolition, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment of that site. Mr. Patel stated that the Electric Road property is currently vacant and that Circle K has approved the location. He further explained that the interior of the store would be fully remodeled. Chair King clarified that although the site previously operated as a gas station, it had since been rezoned and grandfathered; therefore, rezoning was required to reinstate the use. Mr. Patel acknowledged this clarification and asked whether the Planning Commission had any questions. Chair King asked if there were any questions from the Commission. Hearing none, she opened the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. and invited public comment. No members of the public came forward, and the public hearing was closed at 6:34 p.m. On motion made by Mr. Henrickson, seconded by Mr. Beamer and duly carried, the Commission recommended to approve the rezoning from RB Residential Business District to HBD Highway Business District. Roll call vote: Mr. Routt - Aye Mr. Henrickson - Aye Mr. Beamer - Aye Mr. Garst - Absent Chair King - Aye Chair King announced that the motion carried. She stated that the Planning Commission serves as a recommending and research body to City Council and that the request would be forwarded with a recommendation for approval. The applicant would be notified once the item was placed on the City Council agenda. Mr. Patel inquired about the City Council hearing date, noting that he may be out of the country and asked whether an agent could appear on his behalf. Commission members confirmed that representation by an agent would be acceptable. Mr. Beamer asked about the anticipated opening timeline, and Mr. Patel estimated approximately eight months to allow for remodeling. Mr. Patel also stated that the Circle K would create approximately 15–20 jobs due to 24-hour operations. Chair King reiterated that the request would proceed to City Council and that the applicant would be notified accordingly. B. Amendment to the City Code Page 42 of 362 Hold a public hearing to consider amending Chapter 66, Article I, in General, Section 66-11, Application of chapter to certain types of signs, Article IV, Permitted signs by use and district, Sections 66-105, Permitted signs and 66-107 Prohibited signs, and Article V, Definitions, Section 66- 151 Definitions, of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA pertaining to signs. Proper legal notice has been given and all adjoining property owners have been notified of said hearing. Mary Ellen Wines, 21 S. Bruffey Street, addressed the Commission and explained that the sign ordinance is a living document that requires updates to reflect changes in business practices. She noted the increased use of strip lighting, strand lighting, tube lighting, and bistro-style lighting throughout the city. Ms. Wines stated that downtown streetscape improvements include overhead lighting intended to preserve the unique character of the area, and therefore strip lighting should be prohibited in the downtown area. The proposed amendments would define strip lighting as white or clear lights only and permit their use exclusively in the HBD Highway Business District and BCD Business Commerce District. Multicolored string lights would be classified as holiday decorations and permitted only between November 15 and January 15. Ms. Wines further explained that strip lighting would not include residential easements as defined in the ordinance, ensuring that residential decorative lighting would not be in violation. All lighting would be required to remain static, with no blinking or movement. When used as signage, strip lighting would count toward allowable signage. In HBD and BCD districts, strip lighting placed in or around windows would be considered window signage and calculated accordingly, with one linear foot of strip lighting equaling one-half square foot of signage. Additionally, Ms. Wines stated that the amendments would define gas pump signs, noting that logos displayed on gas pumps had not previously been included in allowable sign area calculations. The proposed amendment would limit gas pump signage to a maximum of two square feet. Chair King asked if there were any questions. Ms. Wines noted that two modifications had been made to the ordinance and were included in the agenda packet: (1) strip lighting would be allowed only between November 15 and January 15 for holiday decorations, while other holiday decorations would still be permitted at other times; and (2) strip lighting would not be considered a sign when used on residential structure types. Chair King open the public hearing at 6:41 p.m. Dr. Joe Foley, 302 Academy Street, requested clarification regarding the use of strip lighting for holidays such as Halloween. Ms. Wines responded that strip lighting would not be permitted for those holidays. Dr. Foley also asked about lighting on a Festivus pole. Ms. Wines clarified that if the pole were located at a residence, the lighting would be permitted. No additional public comments were offered. Chair King closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. and noted for the record that no written correspondence had been received, which Ms. Wines confirmed. Page 43 of 362 On motion made by Mr. Routt, seconded by Mr. Henrickson, and duly carried the Commission recommended to approve the amendment to Chapter 66 as presented with 2 modifications. 1) Section 66-11(H)(4) – Holiday and other temporary seasonal decorations (strip lighting allowed only from November 15 through January 15). 2) Section 66-155(A) – the definition of strip lighting to read “Lights in a strip used to outline any portion of a structure other that a structure that is used lawfully as a residential use type defined in section 106-602.3.” Roll call vote: Mr. Routt - Aye Mr. Henrickson - Aye Mr. Beamer - Aye Mr. Garst – Absent Chair King - Aye Chair King stated that the amendment was approved and will go to City Council. C. Amendment to the PC bylaws regarding Designated Agents Hold a public hearing to consider the Amendment to the PC bylaws regarding Designated Agents. Introduce the proposal to amend Article 2.D. Agents shall serve at the request of the Commission and shall be the City Manager and the Director of Community Development his or her designee. Proper legal notice has been given and all adjoining property owners have been notified of said hearing. Chair King stated the 3rd item of the agenda is a potential amendment to the PC bylaws and the Commission has learned of some additional information. She entertained a motion to continue to the January 14th meeting. On motion made by Mr. Henrickson, seconded by Mr. Routt, and duly carried, the Commission continued the amendment to the Planning Commission bylaws until the January 14, 2026, meeting. Roll call vote: Mr. Routt - Aye Mr. Henrickson - Aye Mr. Beamer - Aye Mr. Garst - Absent Chair King - Aye 4. Adjournment Chair King asked if there was any additional business for the Planning Commission. There being no further business, Chair King adjourned the meeting at 6:44 p.m. Page 44 of 362 Page 45 of 362 Page 46 of 362 Page 47 of 362 Page 48 of 362 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 ELECTRIC ROAD (TAX MAP #221-2-1) FROM RB RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO HBD HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT WHEREAS, Khalili LLC, property owner, and Jay Patel or Assigns, contract purchaser, petitioned to rezone the property at 1000 Electric Road (Tax Map # 221-2-1) from RB Residential Business District to HBD Highway Business District; and WHEREAS, the rezoning is in accordance with good zoning practice; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that the property at 1000 Electric Road (Tax Map # 221-2-1) be and hereby is rezoned from RB Residential Business District to HBD Highway Business District: The map shall be changed in this respect and no other, said property being described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Roanoke Boulevard (Virginia Secondary Route 742 and Highland Road; Thence, with the south side of Roanoke Boulevard N. 50 02’ W. 84.02 feet to a point on same, corner to right-of-way line of Virginia Secondary Route No. 419 (Electric Road); Thence, with the right-of-way line of Virginia Secondary Route No. 419 S. 43 ° 57' W. 249.65 feet (formerly erroneously shown as S. 48 59' W. 249.5 feet) to a point on said right-of-way line, corner of Lot 17; Thence, with the dividing line between Lots 17 and 18, S. 75 ° 57' E. 200 feet to a point on the west side of Highland Road; Thence along the west side of Highland Road N. 14° 03’ E. 179.71 feet to the place of BEGINNING. and being known and designated as Lot 18, Section 2, according to a plat made by C. B. Malcolm, Engineer, dated April 7, 1937, entitled “Revised Map of that Portion of the Fairfield Map owned by C.C. Nelms.” All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage. Page 49 of 362 Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: John Saunders - H. Hunter Holliday – Byron Randolph Foley – Anne Marie Green – Renee F. Turk – Passed: Effective: /s/____ _ Mayor ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Page 50 of 362 Item #: 6.A. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance on first reading for the request of McDonald’s Corporation, property owner, to rezone the property located at 101 Electric Road (Tax Map # 80 – 4 – 1) from HBD Highway Business District with condition to HBD Highway Business District. (Advertised in the January 22 and 29, 2026, issues of The Salem Times-Register.) (Planning Commission recommended approval.) SUBMITTED BY: Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: According to City Code Section 106-522.7 - Amendments of conditions, any request to amend conditions that were voluntarily proffered and accepted by Council shall be considered a new amendment to the zoning ordinance and shall be reviewed pursuant to the provisions of Section 106-520. Section 106-520.1(A) states the Commission shall study proposals to determine: 1. Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the city's comprehensive plan. 2. The relationship of the proposed amendment to the purposes of the general planning program of the city, with appropriate consideration as to whether the change will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. 3. The need and justification for the change. 4. When pertaining to a change in the district classification of property, the effect of the change, if any, on the property, surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the Commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for the proposed change as related to the purposes set forth at the beginning of each district classification. Page 51 of 362 Parcel information: Zoning: HBD Highway Business District (with condition) Land Use Plan Designation: Commercial Existing Use: Restaurant Proposed Use: Restaurant (remove condition) The subject property (101 Electric Road) consists of a 1.152-acre tract of land which currently sits within the HBD Highway Business District zoning designation. In 1986, during a previous rezoning, a condition was placed on the property requiring construction to be in accordance with the site plan as presented, likely due to the anxiety surrounding the ultimate redevelopment of the Lakeside area. The property owner is now seeking to demolish the structure, update the site layout, and rebuild a new restaurant. As a result, the applicant is requesting to remove that previous condition (HBD Highway Business District with condition to HBD Highway Business District). A site plan for the proposed redevelopment has already been submitted to the City and is in the standard review process. However, site plan approval will not be issued unless the existing condition is removed. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as Commercial which is consistent with the proposed future utilization of the property. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends consideration of the ordinance on first reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Rezoning Application 2. Concept Plan 3. Elevations 4. Survey with Legal Description 5. January 14, 2026 minutes PC 6. Council meeting owner notification letter - 101 Electric Road T.M. 80-4-1 7. Legal Ad 1.22 8. Legal Ad 1.29 9. Rezoning Ordinance for 101 Electric Road T.M. 80-4-1_incl. legal description Page 52 of 362 1 City of Salem Rezoning Application • Meetings with the Community Development Staff are recommended prior to submittal of a rezoning application. Please bring a plat to the meeting with a sketch of your proposal. Application Submittal • The application deadline is the first of the month for inclusion on the following month’s agenda. If the first falls on a weekend or holiday, the application deadline will be the following business day. • When submitting an application be sure to include the following: a complete application, plat of the subject property, legal description that includes metes and bounds, and supplementary information to support the request (such as conceptual plans and building elevations). Please note: incomplete • The application fee is due at time of submittal. (See Page 4) • PLEASE NOTE: As per 106-520(C) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance no application shall be accepted for a lot or parcel that does not comply with the minimum lot area, width, or frontage requirements of the requested zoning district. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals must Application Distribution for City Review • Staff/Applicant Meeting • The staff may contact the applicant to schedule a meeting to discuss comments provided by reviewing agencies, to request additional information or plan revisions, and to negotiate proffers. Planning Commission • Revised conceptual plans and draft proffers must be submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Proffers and conceptual plans may be revised in accordance with Staff’s recommendations, and revisions incorporating the staff’s recommendations must be submitted • A staff report and recommendation is included in the Planning Commission packet. The packet is distributed approximately 1 week prior to the Planning Commission meeting. • The Planning Commission meets on the 1st Wednesday after the 1st City Council meeting of the month. • Following a public hearing on the rezoning case, the Planning Commission may recommend approval, approval with revisions to the proffers, denial, or deferral of the application. City Council •Signed and notarized final proffers must be submitted prior to the City Council meeting. • A staff report containing the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Staff is sent to the City Council prior to the meeting. • The City Council typically hears rezoning cases on the 4th Monday of every month. Cases are usually heard by Council at the meeting following the Planning Commission meeting. • Following a public hearing on the case, the City Council may vote to approve, approve with proffered conditions, deny, defer the application to another meeting, or remand the application Page 53 of 362 2 TO THE APPLICANT: It is the policy of the City of Salem City Council, the City of Salem Planning Commission, and City of Salem Board of Zoning Appeals to require a property to be posted when a zoning action is being considered. Such a posting notifies the general public of an impending action and the location being considered. It is incumbent on you, the applicant, to e nsure the sign is in the proper location and remains there until an action has taken place. Consequently, the procedure for posting is as follows: 1.The Community Development Staff will post the sign on your property. 2.You should check the location of the sign to make certain it is in the right place on your property. If it is not, notify the Community Development Office as soon as possible. 3.You should check periodically to e n s u r e the safety of the sign. If it is stolen or otherwise harmed, notify the Community Development Office as soon as possible. In submitting this rezoning application, you hereby grant permission to the agents and employees of the City of Salem to enter the referenced property for the purposes of processing and reviewing the above application. Should you have any questions regarding this policy, please contact a member of Community Development. ATTACHMENTS - For ALL REQUESTS you must submit the following electronically: A fully completed signed application. Acknowledgement of Application Fee Payment Procedure (Page 4) Signed Proffer Statement if applicable (Pages 6 & 7) A plat of the subject property, which accurately reflects the current property boundaries, is drawn to scale, and shows existing structures. (Typically, available from the City Clerk’s Office.) Responses to questions on Page 5 Historic Impact Information (if any) For applications requiring plans, please submit electronically only. No hard copies will be accepted. Check here if the conceptual plan will serve as the preliminary plat. NOTE: Elevations will be required with new development. Page 54 of 362 3 [ ] City of Salem Community Development Application Case #: APPLICANT INFORMATION Owner: Contact Name: Address: Telephone No. _ Fax No. Email Address _ _ Applicant/Contract Purchaser: Contact Name: Address: Telephone No. _ Fax No. Email Address _ _ QUESTIONS/ LETTERS/ SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE FOLLOWING**: Name Address: **It is the responsibility of the contact person to provide copies of all correspondence to other interested parties to the application. Telephone No. _ Fax No. Email Address _ _ Request for REZONING or CONDITIONAL REZONING PARCEL INFORMATION For multiple parcels, please attach a page (Tax ID #’s) Subdivision Location Description (Street Address, if applicable) _ Total Area (acres/square feet) _ Current Zoning Zoning Use SIGNATURE OF OWNER CONTRACT PURCHASER (attach contract) As owner or authorized agent of this property, I hereby certify that this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and I hereby grant permission to the agents and employees of the City of Salem to enter the property for the purposes of processing and reviewing this request. Date Name Date Name  Conditional Zoning Request: See Attached Proffer sheets Page 55 of 362 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF APPLICATION FEE PAYMENT PROCEDURE Application fees must be submitted at the time of submittal. I hereby acknowledge that this application is not complete until the payment for all applicable fees has been received by the City of Salem Community Development Department. I acknowledge that I am responsible for ensuring that such fees are received by the City of Salem. I further acknowledge that any application fee submitted after the deadline shall result in the application being considered filed for the next month’s meetings. Signature of applicant/authorized agent _______________________________ Date: ______________________ Print Name: _______________________________________________ Signature of applicant/authorized agent _______________________________ Date: ______________________ Print Name: _______________________________________________ If you would like your correspondence emailed and/or faxed, please make selections, and provide the information below: Email Fax: FEES: All application fees must be paid at the time of submittal. Please make checks payable to the City of Salem: Rezoning application fee $1,000 Staff Reviewer: _____________ Application Complete? YES NO Date: _____________ FEES: Page 56 of 362 5 PLEASE RESPOND FOR ALL REZONING APPLICATIONS: 1. What is the Future Land Use Designation for the subject property? _______________________________________ 2. Describe in detail the proposed use of the property. _________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. List any sensitive environmental or unique features on the property. Are there any high voltage transmission lines, public utility lines, or others? ________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Is the subject property located within the Floodplain District?  YES  NO If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Floodplain Ordinance. ____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Is the subject property listed as a historic structure or located within a historic district?  YES  NO If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Department of Historic Resources. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Have you provided a conceptual plan of the proposed development, including general lot configurations and road locations? Are the proposed lot sizes compatible with existing parcel sizes in the area? PLEASE RESPOND FOR COMMERCIAL REZONING APPLICATIONS 1. What provisions will be made to ensure safe and adequate access to the subject property? 2. How will the traffic impact of this development be addressed? 3. Describe why the proposed use is desirable and appropriate for the area. What measure will be taken to assure that the proposed use will not have a negative impact on the surrounding vicinity? 4. What type of signage is proposed for the site? 5. Have architectural/building elevations been submitted with this application? Page 57 of 362 LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LO D LO D LOD LOD LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLOD LOD LODLODLOD LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LOD LODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LO D LOD LO D DR I V E TH R U EL E C T R I C R D . - U . S . A L T . R T E . 4 6 0 - V A R T E . 4 1 9 EAST M A I N S T . - U . S . R T E . 4 6 0 W E S SO U T H Z O N E VC S N A D 8 3 / 2 0 1 1 N87°19'57"W (R) N87°25'43"W (M) 200.00' (R&M) N06°15'01"W (R) N06°20'47"W 184.42' (M) C4 S87°55'20"E 33.12' (M) C5 C6 N74°53'40"E 130.01' (M) S55°02'57"E (R) S55°00'14"E 52.99' (M) S05°27'57"W (R) S05°30'40"W (M) 101.01' (R&M) S02°25'05" W (R) S02°27'48"W (M) 108.99' (R&M) 8' LANDSCA P E BUFFER 8' L A N D S C A P E B U F F E R 8' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 8' L A N D S C A P E B U F F E R 8' L A N D S C A P E B U F F E R LANDS OF MCDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY D.B.329 PG. 783 TAX MAP# 80-4-1 AREA:46,426 S.F. OR 1.066 AC. (M) ZONE:HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT USE:FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT D C/O C/O C/O C/O C/O D TP TP C/O C/O C/O C/O C/O C/O TP 11 3 7 1 17 PROPOSED 2023 SERIES BB20 4597-WW-HB-FRON T E N T R Y MCDONALD'S RESTA U R A N T (4,311 SF.) (64 SEATS) FFE: 1034.00' 44.89' 96 . 7 9 ' 1 118.5' 60°' 90°' 60°' 30'R 4'R 3'R 20 ' R 1.5'R 4'R 14. 6 ' R 4'R 1'R 4'R 50'R 50.3'R 1'R 10'R 10.7 ' R 10. 2 ' R 20'R 2.5 ' R 24 . 3 ' R 10'R 5'R 10'R 5'R2'R 18'R 2.5' R 8'R 2'R 18'R 6' 20' 20.1' 13 ' 10 ' 20 ' 14.4' 11.9' 30 ' 42 . 3 ' 10' 20'10' 20.1' 22 ' 9' 34.8' 20.4' 24 . 3 ' 21.9' 10 ' 20' 5' 28 . 2 ' 20.1' 20 . 1 ' 9' (TY P ) 9'(T Y P ) 9'(TY P ) 9' (T Y P ) 9' (TYP) 8' 9' 3' 5' 5' 12'5.3'5' 6' 2. 5 ' 4' 6' 60 ° ' 11.5 ' R 30'R 28.7 ' R 10 ' 3.2 ' R 5' 23 . 6 ' 4'R 24 ' 2' 30 ' R 51 . 3 ' 102.4' 62 . 2 ' 60.9' 9.9 ' 3.2 ' R 13. 1 ' MCDONALD'S DUAL DRIVE THRU ZONING TABLE ZONE: HBD - HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT USE: FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT W/ DRIVE-THRU PARCEL ID: 80-4-1 APPLICANT/ OWNER INFORMATION APPLICANT: McDONALD'S USA, LLC 110 N CARPENTER STREET CHICAGO, IL 60607 PROPERTY OWNER: McDONALD'S USA, LLC 110 N CARPENTER STREET CHICAGO, IL 60607 BULK REQUIREMENTS ITEM PERMITTED EXISTING PROPOSED MIN LOT AREA NOT SPECIFIED 46,426 SF (1.066 AC)NO CHANGE MIN LOT WIDTH NOT SPECIFIED 180'NO CHANGE MIN LOT DEPTH NOT SPECIFIED 210'NO CHANGE MIN BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT SETBACK 55.0' FROM CENTERLINE OF E MAIN STREET 48.7'62.2' SIDE SETBACK NOT SPECIFIED 65.6' (EAST) 67.4' (WEST) 60.9' (EAST) 102.4' (WEST) REAR REAR SETBACK NOT SPECIFIED 85.0'51.3' MAX PERMITTED HEIGHT 80.0' FROM GRADE 18.0'19.0' BUFFER REQUIREMENTS MIN FRONT BUFFER 8.0'0'3.2' ** MIN SIDE BUFFER 8.0'5.25' (EAST) 4.65' (WEST) 7.6' (EAST) ** 14.4' (WEST) MIN REAR BUFFER 8.0'4.55'4.0' ** PARKING REQUIREMENTS MIN STALL SIZE (60°)9' x 19.8' *9' x 18.5'9' x 20.1' MIN ADA STALL SIZE 8' x 19.8' *9' x 18.5'9' x 20.1' MIN AISLE WIDTH (60°)18' (ONE-WAY)18.5'20.0' MIN NUMBER OF SPACES 1 SPACE / 4 SEATS + 1 SPACE / EMPLOYEE ON SHIFT = (64/4) + 15 = 31 48 STALLS 40 STALLS MIN NUMBER OF ADA SPACES 2 STALLS 2 STALLS 2 STALLS * WHEN ADJACENT TO LANDSCAPED AREA ** 8' LANDSCAPE STRIP CANNOT BE ACHIEVED DUE TO SITE CONSTRAINTS. ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLAN PROVIDED. SEE SHEET L-101. D e c 0 1 , 2 0 2 5 H: \ 2 0 2 4 \ V A C 2 4 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 \ C A D \ D R A W I N G S \ E X H I B I T S \ E X H A \ E X H A - S I T E - V A C 2 4 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 - 0 A - - - - - > L A Y O U T : C - 3 0 1 S I T E MCDONALD'S ELECTRIC ROAD CONCEPTUAL PLAN 101 ELECTRIC ROAD SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 12/1/2025 | MR | VAC240050.00 9100 ARBORETUM PKWY, SUITE 140 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23236 Phone:(804) 893-8200 VA@BohlerEng.com TM 1"=20' 0 2051020 Page 58 of 362 Mc D o n a l d ' s U S A , L L C 30 0 B r o a d a c r e s D r i v e , S u i t e 2 5 0 Bl o o m f i e l d , N J 0 7 0 0 0 3 97 3 . 8 8 3 . 8 5 7 0 f a x 9 7 3 . 8 8 3 . 8 5 0 1 ht t p : / / w w w . a e c o m . c o m Te c h n i c a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . We l c o m e We l c o m e Page 59 of 362 Mc D o n a l d ' s U S A , L L C 30 0 B r o a d a c r e s D r i v e , S u i t e 2 5 0 Bl o o m f i e l d , N J 0 7 0 0 0 3 97 3 . 8 8 3 . 8 5 7 0 f a x 9 7 3 . 8 8 3 . 8 5 0 1 ht t p : / / w w w . a e c o m . c o m Te c h n i c a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . Page 60 of 362 © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 TomTom DRIVE THRU DRIVE THRU DRIVE THRU DR I V E TH R U TH A N K YO U DRIVE THRU EL E C T R I C R D . - U . S . A L T . R T E . 4 6 0 - V A R T E . 4 1 9 EAST M A I N S T . - U . S . R T E . 4 6 0 W E S SO U T H Z O N E VC S N A D 8 3 / 2 0 1 1 N87°19'57"W (R) N87°25'43"W (M) 200.00' (R&M) N06°15'01"W (R) N06°20'47"W 184.42' (M) C1 S87°55'20"E 33.12' (M) C2 C3 N74°53'40"E 130.01' (M) S55°02'57"E (R) S55°00'14"E 52.99' (M) S05°27'57"W (R) S05°30'40"W (M) 101.01' (R&M) CURVE TABLE (MEASURED) CURVE C1 C2 C3 RADIUS 726.30' 4.00' 12.50' LENGTH 30.81' 6.18' 6.31' CHORD BEARING N79°39'32"E N51°27'23"E N19°55'59"W CHORD 30.81' 5.58' 6.24' DELTA 002°25'51" 088°32'29" 028°55'41" TANGENT 15.41' 3.90' 3.22' LANDS OF McDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY D.B. 329 PG. 783 TAX MAP# 80-4-1 AREA: 46,426 S.F. OR 1.066 AC. (M) S0 2 ° 2 5 ' 0 5 " W ( R ) S0 2 ° 2 7 ' 4 8 " W ( M ) 1 0 8 . 9 9 ' ( R & M ) REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE CONCRETE ORG. DATE - REVISIONS REV DATE COMMENT DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 03/25/2025 FOR H: \ 2 0 2 4 \ V A C 2 4 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 \ S U R V E Y \ C A D \ D R A W I N G S \ S - A L T A - S U R V - V A C 2 4 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 - 0 A - - - - - > L A Y O U T : L A Y O U T 1 GT SHEET NUMBER: PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: CAD I.D.: PROJECT: OF FIELD DATE: CREW CHIEF: APPROVED: VAC240050.00-0A GT EB 03/25/2025 S-ALTA-SURV McDONALD'S CORPORATION 101 ELECTRIC ROAD CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA 1 01/23/2025 MS MJM ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY 1 12825 WORLDGATE DR. SUITE 700 HERNDON, VIRGINIA 20170 Phone:(703) 709-9500 Fax:(703) 709-9501 VA@BohlerEng.com TM TH E I N F O R M A T I O N , D E S I G N A N D C O N T E N T O F T H I S P L A N A R E P R O P R I E T A R Y A N D S H A L L N O T B E C O P I E D O R U S E D F O R A N Y P U R P O S E W I T H O U T P R I O R W R I T T E N AU T H O R I Z A T I O N F R O M B O H L E R . O N L Y A P P R O V E D , S I G N E D A N D S E A L E D P L A N S S H A L L B E U T I L I Z E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N P U R P O S E S © SI T E C I V I L A N D C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R I N G LA N D S U R V E Y I N G PR O G R A M M A N A G E M E N T LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E SU S T A I N A B L E D E S I G N PE R M I T T I N G S E R V I C E S TR A N S P O R T A T I O N S E R V I C E S BO H L E R SCALE: 1" = 2,000' 0 SCALE:1" = 20' 20 20510 SITE LOCATION MAP DATE THIS CERTIFICATION IS MADE TO ONLY NAMED PARTIES FOR PURCHASE AND/OR MORTGAGE OF HEREIN DELINEATED PROPERTY BY THE NAMED PURCHASER. NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY IS ASSUMED BY SURVEYOR FOR THE USE OF SURVEY FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, USE OF SURVEY AFFIDAVIT, RESALE OF PROPERTY, OR TO ANY OTHER PERSON NOT LISTED IN CERTIFICATION, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. VIRGINIA LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 3664 M. JUSTIN MAROHNIC TO: McDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY; AND FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2021 MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYS, JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS, AND INCLUDES ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(A), 7(A), 7(B)(1), 7(C), 8, 9, 11(A), 11(B), 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 & 19 OF TABLE A THEREOF. THE FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED ON JANUARY 23, 2025. LEGEND EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION EXIST. TOP OF CURB ELEVATION EXIST. GUTTER ELEVATION EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT ELEVATION WATER VALVE APPROX. LOC. UNDERGROUND WATER LINE PER UTILITY MARKOUT OVERHEAD WIRES APPROX. LOC. UNDERGROUND ELEC. LINE PER UTILITY MARKOUT APPROX. LOC. UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC LINE PER UTILITY MARKOUT APPROX. LOC. UNDERGROUND SEWER LINE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE WATER METER UTILITY POLE CLEAN OUT PAINTED ARROWS UTILITY POLE/LIGHT POLE STREET LIGHT BOLLARD AREA LIGHTAREA LIGHT TREE (SIZE AS NOTED) BUSH ELECTRIC METER ELECTRIC BOX TITLE REPORT EXCEPTION LC #45-0298 NOTES: 1.LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE, SOURCE INFORMATION FROM PLANS AND MARKINGS HAS BEEN COMBINED WITH OBSERVED EVIDENCE OF UTILITIES TO DEVELOP A VIEW OF THOSE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. HOWEVER, LACKING EXCAVATION, THE EXACT LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FEATURES CANNOT BE ACCURATELY, COMPLETELY AND RELIABLY DEPICTED. WHERE ADDITIONAL OR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS REQUIRED, THE CLIENT IS ADVISED THAT EXCAVATION MAY BE NECESSARY. QUALITY LEVEL D - UTILITY LINES SHOWN PER REFERENCE. NOT FIELD VERIFIED. QUALITY LEVEL C - UTILITY FEATURES (MANHOLES, COVERS, ETC.) LOCATED AT THE SURFACE. SUPPLEMENTED WITH QUALITY LEVEL D. QUALITY LEVEL B - UTILITY LINES MARKED BY OTHERS VIA ELECTROMAGNETIC LOCATING/GROUND PENETRATING TECHNOLOGY AND FIELD LOCATION. QUALITY LEVEL A - UTILITY LINES THAT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED THROUGH NONDESTRUCTIVE EXCAVATION METHOD TO OBTAIN VISUAL EVIDENCE AS WELL AS BOTH HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN PER PRIVATE UTILITY MARKOUT PERFORMED BY INSIGHT, LLC ON JANUARY 17, 2025 AND FIELD LOCATED WITH CONVENTIONAL FIELD SURVEY METHODS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2.THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED IN THE FIELD ON JANUARY 23, 2025 UTILIZING THE REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AS LISTED HEREON AND DEPICTS BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. 3.ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD88 DATUM DETERMINED BY GPS OBSERVATIONS. 4.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN OTHER AREAS ZONE X (AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN) PER MAP ENTITLED “NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, FIRM, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS, PANEL 142 OF 310”, MAP NUMBER 51161C0142G WITH A MAP REVISED DATE OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2007. 5.THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ZONING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TABLE A ITEM 6(A). 6.NO SURVEY OF SUBTERRANEAN STRUCTURES OR INTERIOR SPACES SUCH AS FOOTINGS, FOUNDATIONS, VAULTS OR BASEMENTS WAS PERFORMED AS PART OF THIS LAND SURVEY, AND THIS PLAN SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS CERTIFICATION TO THE EXISTENCE OR LOCATION OF THE SAME. 7.THERE WAS NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE OF BURIAL GROUNDS, CEMETERIES, GRAVES, OR GRAVEYARDS OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THE FIELD WORK. 8.THERE IS NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE OF RECENT EARTH MOVING WORK, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDING ADDITIONS IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THE FIELDWORK. 9.THERE ARE NOT ANY CHANGES IN STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINES EITHER COMPLETED OR PROPOSED, AND AVAILABLE FROM THE CONTROLLING JURISDICTION AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF RECENT STREET OR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION OR REPAIRS OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING THE FIELDWORK. UTILITIES: THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES WERE NOTIFIED BY VIRGINIA MISS UTILITY SYSTEM (1-800-552-7001) AND REQUESTED TO MARK OUT UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AFFECTING AND SERVICING THIS SITE. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED UPON THE UTILITY COMPANIES RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST. TICKET NUMBER: A434801013-00A UTILITY COMPANY LOCATE STATUS PHONE NUMBER SALEM ELECTRIC MARKED 540-375-3030 COMCAST COMMUNICATIONS NO CONFLICT 703-754-2116 CROWN CASTLE NO CONFLICT 801-364-1063 SALEM WATER & SEWER MARKED 540-266-4712 ROANOKE GAS MARKED 540-655-0277 SEGRA AKA LUMOS NETWORK- COMM NO CONFLICT 801-364-1063 VERIZON NO CONFLICT 804-286-1721 GAS MANHOLE APPROX. LOC. UNDERGROUND GAS LINE PER UTILITY MARKOUT GREASE TRAPS BENCHMARK DENOTES PARKING SPACE COUNT PLUS OR MINUS (M) (R)RECORD MEASURED UTILITY POLE/LIGHT POLE NOW OR FORMERLY SQUARE FOOT TITLE NOTES: THIS SURVEY IS PREPARED WITH REFERENCE TO A COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE PREPARED BY FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, COMMITMENT NO. 5000012491, WITH A COMMITMENT DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2025. THE CLIENT UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT THE FIRM SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN OR RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE TITLE DOCUMENTS OR FROM ANY DEFICIENCIES OR ANY INACCURACIES CONTAINED IN SAID TITLE DOCUMENTS. OUR OFFICE HAS REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING SURVEY RELATED EXCEPTIONS IN SCHEDULE B, PART II: 8.MATTERS AS SHOWN AND NOTED ON PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 153; DO NOT AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, DOCUMENT CREATES THE CURRENT BOUNDARY CONFIGURATION ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LIMITS OF EAST MAIN STREET - U.S. ROUTE 460. 9.MATTERS AS SHOWN AND NOTED ON PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 44; DO NOT AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, DOCUMENT CREATES THE CURRENT BOUNDARY CONFIGURATION ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LIMITS OF EAST MAIN STREET - U.S. ROUTE 460. 10.MATTERS AS SHOWN AND NOTED ON PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 38; DO NOT AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, DOCUMENT IS A SUBDIVISION OF THE LANDS TO THE SOUTH AND WEST. 11.MATTERS AS SHOWN AND NOTED ON PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 111, PAGE 36; AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN. 12.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, A CORPORATION SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 12, 1941 IN DEED BOOK 292, PAGE 460; AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, VAGUE AND INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE EASEMENT LOCATION. DOCUMENT CONTAINS RIGHTS OF CLEARAGE AND INGRESS AND EGRESS, NOT PLOTTABLE, BLANKET IN NATURE. 13.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON JULY 10, 1946 IN DEED BOOK 341, PAGE 172; AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, VAGUE AND INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE EASEMENT LOCATION. DOCUMENT CONTAINS RIGHTS OF CLEARAGE AND INGRESS AND EGRESS, NOT PLOTTABLE, BLANKET IN NATURE. 14.RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON MAY 16, 1953 IN DEED BOOK 488, PAGE 466; AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, VAGUE AND INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE EASEMENT LOCATION. DOCUMENT CONTAINS RIGHTS OF CLEARAGE AND INGRESS AND EGRESS, NOT PLOTTABLE, BLANKET IN NATURE. 15.DEED OF EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, A CORPORATION SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON MAY 16, 1959 IN DEED BOOK 618, PAGE 96; AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EASEMENT IS SHOWN. 16.EASEMENT AGREEMENT IN FAVOR OF MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON APRIL 18, 1981 IN DEED BOOK 111, PAGE 07; EASEMENT AMENDMENT AGREEMENT IN FAVOR OF MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON AUGUST 6, 1986 IN DEED BOOK 114, PAGE 616; AFFECTS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, PLOTTABLE EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN. DOCUMENT CONTAINS BLANKET EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES, INGRESS/EGRESS, AND PARKING. 17.DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RECORDED ON APRIL 18, 1986 IN DEED BOOK 111, PAGE 28; FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RECORDED ON FEBRUARY 10, 1988 IN DEED BOOK 135, PAGE 542; MAY BENEFIT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, DOCUMENT CONTAINS TERMS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS. DOCUMENT SPEAKS TO A PERIOD OF TWENTY YEARS FROM THE DATE OF RECORDATION, IT IS UNKNOWN IF THE RESTRICTION STILL EXISTS. 18.RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 IN DEED BOOK 116, PAGE 401; AFFECTS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, APPROXIMATE LOCATION CENTERLINE OF EASEMENT IS SHOWN. 19.EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON JANUARY 21, 1994 IN DEED BOOK 215, PAGE 431; AFFECTS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, APPROXIMATE LOCATION CENTERLINE OF EASEMENT IS SHOWN. TITLE DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION OF 1.1562 ACRE PARCEL AT THE INTERSECTION OF ELECTRIC ROAD & EAST MAIN STREET SALEM, VIRGINIA. BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE HIGHWAY MONUMENT FOUND IN THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE SOUTH BOUND LANE OF ELECTRIC ROAD (VA. RTE. 419) AND BEING CORNER #1 AS SHOWN ON TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR MCDONALD'S CORPORATION BY T. P. PARKER & SON, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS, LTD. DATED DECEMBER 24, 1985; THENCE WITH SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, S. 2° 25' 05” W. 108.99 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AT CORNER #2; THENCE CONTINUING WITH SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, S. 5° 27' 57” W. 101.01 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET SHOWN 7473 CORNER #3; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WITH NEW DIVISION LINES ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF PIEDMONT PROPERTIES II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (DEED BOOK 89, PAGE 399), N. 87° 19' 57” W. 200.00 FEET TO CHISELED "X" IN A CONCRETE GUTTER SHOWN AS CORNER #4; THENCE N. 01” W. 210.00 FEET TO A PIN SET IN THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF EAST MAIN STREET (VA. RTE. 460) SHOWN AS CORNER #5; THENCE WITH SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE DELTA IS 5° 21' 23”, WHOSE RADIUS IS 1925.36 FEET, WHOSE ARC IS 180.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD IS N. 79° 18' 56” E. 179.92 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AND BEING SHOWN AS CORNER 16; THENCE WITH SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, S. 55° 02' 57” E. 73.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF EAST STREET AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ELECTRIC ROAD, CONTAINING 1.1562 ACRES (50,365 S-F-) AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE LAKESIDE AMUSEMENT MAIN. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT IN FAVOR OF MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON APRIL 18, 1981 IN DEED BOOK 111, PAGE 07; EASEMENT AMENDMENT AGREEMENT SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON AUGUST 6, 1986 IN DEED BOOK 114, PAGE 616. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM MCDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION BY DEED DATED JULY 17, 2000 AND RECORDED JULY 23, 2000 IN DEED BOOK 337, PAGE 222. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM MCDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 1, 2002 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 2002 IN INSTRUMENT NO. 020005541. AND BEING THE SAME PROPERTY CONVEYED TO MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION FROM PIEDMONT PROPERTIES II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A NORTH CAROLINA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY DEED DATED APRIL 18, 1986 AND RECORDED APRIL 18, 1986 IN DEED BOOK 111, PAGE 04; AND FURTHER CONVEYED TO MCDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY FROM MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION BY GENERAL WARRANTY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1995 AND RECORDED JULY 20, 2000 IN DEED BOOK 329, PAGE 783. TAX PARCEL NO. 80-4-1 PK NAIL SET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTES HANDHOLE Page 61 of 362 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, January 14, 2026, at 6:30 PM Work Session, 5:30 PM, Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 Regular Session, 6:30 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 WORK SESSION 1. Call to Order A work session meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 5:30 p.m., on Wednesday, January 14, 2026, there being present the following members of said Commission, to wit: Denise P. King, Reid Garst, Jackson Beamer, Mark Henrickson, and Nathan Routt, constituting a legal quorum, with Chair King, presiding; together with Rob Light, Assistant City Manager and Deputy Executive Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission, Charles E. Van Allman Jr., Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner, and Jim Guynn, City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Chair Denise King reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the Commission to hold a work session. The work session meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m. A discussion was held on the following items: 2. New Business A. Items for the January agenda 1. 101 Electric Road Rezoning 2. Amendment of the PC bylaws 3. Adjournment Chair King adjourned at 6:24 p.m. Page 62 of 362 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, at 6:30 p.m., on Wednesday, January 14, 2026, there being present the following members of said Commission, to wit: Denise P. King, Reid Garst, Jackson Beamer, Mark Henrickson, and Nathan Routt, constituting a legal quorum, with Chair King, presiding; together with Rob Light, Assistant City Manager and Deputy Executive Secretary, ex officio member of said Commission, Charles E. Van Allman Jr., Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner, and Jim Guynn, City Attorney, and the following business was transacted: Chair King called the January meeting of the City of Salem Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. Reporting that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the Commission to hold a public meeting. A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll call Mr. Routt - Here Mr. Henrickson - Here Mr. Beamer - Here Mr. Garst - Here Chair King – Here 2. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2026 as conducted by Chair Pro Tem, Mr. Light. A. Election of Chairman for 2026 Mr. Light asked for nominations for Chairman for the Planning Commission for the year 2026. Mr. Garst nominated Mrs. King and Mr. Beamer seconded the nomination. Roll call vote Mr. Routt – Aye Mr. Henrickson – Aye Mr. Beamer – Aye Mr. Garst – Aye Chair King – Aye Chair King stated she accepted the role of Chairman for the year 2026, continuing to the next order of business to elect a Vice Chairman for the year 2026. Page 63 of 362 B. Election of Vice Chairman for the Planning Commission for the year 2026 Chair King asked if anyone would like to make a nomination. Mr. Henrickson nominated Mr. Reid Garst to be Vice Chairman and Mr. Routt seconded the nomination. Chair King hearing no other nominations she called for the roll call vote. Roll call vote Mr. Routt - Aye Mr. Henrickson - Aye Mr. Beamer – Aye Mr. Garst – Aye Chairman King - Aye 3. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the December 10th, 2025, work session and regular meeting. Chair King stated that under the consent agenda, are the minutes of the December 10th, 2025, Planning Commission work session and regular meeting. Chair King asked the Commission if anyone had any questions, additions, or comments. Hearing none the minutes were accepted. 4. New Business A. Amendment of the Planning Commission Bylaws Consider amending the bylaws of the Planning Commission to reflect the state code directed amendments regarding the designated agent, state code reference corrections, and clarification regarding the secretary and deputy secretary positions. (Continued from the December 10, 2025, meeting.) Chair King asked if anyone had any comments, hearing none, she asked if there was a motion. Mr. Garst made a motion to approve and Mr. Routt seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote Mr. Routt – Aye Mr. Henrickson – Aye Mr. Beamer – Aye Mr. Garst – Aye Chair King – Aye 5. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance A. Hold a public hearing and consider the request of Mc Donald’s Corporation, property owner, to rezone the property located at 101 Electric Road (Tax Map # 80- Page 64 of 362 4-1) from HBD Highway Business District with condition to HBD Highway Business District. Proper legal notice has been given and all adjoining property owners have been notified of said hearing. Chair King asked if there was anyone on the staff wanting to say something about this item. Ms. Wines stated that there have been no correspondence or public comments received. Chair King invited the representative of the Applicant to come forward and appraise the council of what information there is to be had. Kim Lacy, 1519 Summit Avenue, in Richmond, Virgina, stated that she is an attorney with Roth Jackson, acting agent for the applicant. Pilar Martin accompanied her as she is the engineer on this job and can answer any technical questions. Ms. Lacy described the proposal to demolish and reconstruct the McDonald’s restaurant to add a second drive-through lane, which would merge into a single lane at the service window. Additional signage and traffic control measures were proposed to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety. Chair King asked if anyone had any questions or concerns. Mr. Henrickson asked the engineer about the time frame of the entirety of the project. Pilar Martin, 706 Country Club Road, New Port News, Virginia. The timeline would be approximately six months, with potential reopening one month thereafter. Chair King asked if the plan was to still use the same color scheme gray and white. Ms. Martin agreed that was the plan. Mr. Van Allman asked Ms. Martin if she had any discussions with the Community Development Department, specifically the City Engineer, concerning the greenway and construction in that area. Ms. Martin answered that this project is going through the full site plan process and comments have been received from some of the city departments, including the City Engineer. Mr. Beamer asked if there was a start date set. Mr. Martin said that it may be early 2027 but the developer would like to move that date up if possible. Chair King, hearing no other comments or questions, opened the public hearing portion of the meeting at 6:38 p.m. stating that anyone who wished to speak please come forward and state their name and address for the record. Hearing none Chair King closed the public meeting at 6:40 p.m. Chair King entertained a motion on the matter. Mr. Garst moved to recommend approval to change the zoning at 101 Electric Road from HBD Highway Business District with condition to HBD Highway Business District with no condition. Mr. Routt seconded the motion. Roll call vote Mr. Routt – Aye Mr. Henrickson – Aye Mr. Beamer – Aye Mr. Garst – Aye Chair King – Aye Chair King stated that motion carries. The process in the City of Salem is that the Planning Commission serves as a recommending and research body to City Council and that the request would be forwarded with a recommendation for approval. The applicant would be notified once Page 65 of 362 the item was placed on the City Council agenda. 6. Cancelation of February meeting Chair King stated that no agenda items were scheduled for February and requested a motion to cancel the February Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Routt moved to cancel the February meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Beamer. Roll call vote Mr. Routt – Aye Mr. Henrickson – Aye Mr. Beamer – Aye Mr. Garst – Aye Chair King – Aye 7. Adjournment Chair King stated there was no additional business for the Planning Commission and the meeting was adjourned at 6:42p.m. Page 66 of 362 January 15, 2026 Roth Jackson Gibbons Condlin, PLC 1519 Summit Avenue Suite 102 Richmond, Virgina 23230 RE: Rezoning Request 101 Electric Road Tax Map # 80-4-1 Dear Roth Jackson Gibbons Condlin, PLC: You and/or your agent shall appear before City Council on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, First Floor, Salem City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia for consideration of your rezoning request for the above referenced property. The public hearing and first reading of the ordinance will be held at the February 9th meeting. A separate reading of the ordinance is required at a subsequent meeting, and the ordinance will be in full force and effective 10 days after the adoption of the ordinance on second reading. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at (540) 375-3016. Sincerely, H. Robert Light Assistant City Manager/Clerk of Council Page 67 of 362 Page 68 of 362 Page 69 of 362 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 ELECTRIC ROAD (TAX MAP # 80-4-1) FROM HBD HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH CONDITION TO HBD HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT. WHEREAS, McDonald’s Corporation, property owner, heretofore petitioned to rezone property located at 101 Electric Road (Tax Map # 80-4-1) from HBD Highway Business District with condition to HBD Highway Business District; and the map referred to shall be changed in this respect and no other, said property being described as follows: BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE HIGHWAY MONUMENT FOUND IN THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE SOUTH BOUND LANE OF ELECTRIC ROAD (VA. RTE. 419) AND BEING CORNER #1 AS SHOWN ON TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR MCDONALD'S CORPORATION BY T. P. PARKER & SON, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS, LTD. DATED DECEMBER 24, 1985; THENCE WITH SAID RIGHT-OF- WAY, S. 2° 25' 05” W. 108.99 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AT CORNER #2; THENCE CONTINUING WITH SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, S. 5° 27' 57” W. 101.01 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET SHOWN 7473 CORNER #3; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WITH NEW DIVISION LINES ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF PIEDMONT PROPERTIES II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (DEED BOOK 89, PAGE 399), N. 87° 19' 57” W. 200.00 FEET TO CHISELED "X" IN A CONCRETE GUTTER SHOWN AS CORNER #4; THENCE N. 01” W. 210.00 FEET TO A PIN SET IN THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF EAST MAIN STREET (VA. RTE. 460) SHOWN AS CORNER #5; THENCE WITH SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE DELTA IS 5° 21' 23”, WHOSE RADIUS IS 1925.36 FEET, WHOSE ARC IS 180.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD IS N. 79° 18' 56” E. 179.92 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AND BEING SHOWN AS CORNER 16; THENCE WITH SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, S. 55° 02' 57” E. 73.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF EAST STREET AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ELECTRIC ROAD, CONTAINING 1.1562 ACRES (50,365 S-F-) AND BEING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE LAKESIDE AMUSEMENT MAIN. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT IN FAVOR OF MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON APRIL 18, 1981 IN DEED BOOK 111, PAGE 07; EASEMENT AMENDMENT AGREEMENT SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON AUGUST 6, 1986 IN DEED BOOK 114, PAGE 616. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM MCDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION BY DEED DATED JULY 17, 2000 AND RECORDED JULY 23, 2000 IN DEED BOOK 337, PAGE 222. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM MCDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 1, 2002 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 2002 IN INSTRUMENT NO. 020005541. Page 70 of 362 AND BEING THE SAME PROPERTY CONVEYED TO MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION FROM PIEDMONT PROPERTIES II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A NORTH CAROLINA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY DEED DATED APRIL 18, 1986 AND RECORDED APRIL 18, 1986 IN DEED BOOK 111, PAGE 04; AND FURTHER CONVEYED TO MCDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY FROM MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION BY GENERAL WARRANTY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1995 AND RECORDED JULY 20, 2000 IN DEED BOOK 329, PAGE 783.; and WHEREAS, the subject property consists of a 1.152 acre tract of land which currently sits within the HBD Highway Business District zoning designation; and WHEREAS, in 1986, the City Council of the City of Salem rezoned the property from Industrial District M-1 to Business District B-3 with condition; and WHEREAS, the condition placed on the property required construction to be in accordance with the concept plan as presented; and WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council did adopt a new zoning ordinance which resulted in rezoning this property from Business District B-3 with condition to Highway Business District HBD with condition; and WHEREAS, the petitioners propose a demolition and rebuild of the structure and that structure does not meet the specified restrictions; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that the zoning designation of the property located at 101 Electric Road (Tax Map # 80-4-1) be rezoned to HBD Highway Business District; All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage. Page 71 of 362 Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: John Saunders – H. Hunter Holliday – Byron Randolph Foley – Anne Marie Green – Renee F. Turk – Passed: Effective: /s/____ _ Mayor ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Page 72 of 362 Item #: 6.B. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 1517 - Opposing Virginia General Assembly House Bill 804 Consider adoption of Resolution 1517 opposing Virginia General Assembly House Bill 804 and related legislation. SUBMITTED BY: Chris Dorsey, City Manager SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The 2026 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia is considering House Bill 804. House Bill 804 would require most local governments in Virginia to meet mandatory statewide housing growth targets beginning in 2028. This bill would also require localities to submit housing growth plans to the state and allows the Board of Zoning Appeals and courts to override local land use decisions. Decisions about land use, zoning, and development are fundamental responsibilities of local government and should remain under the authority of locally elected officials who are accountable to their communities. House Bill 804 creates a statewide mandate that does not adequately consider the unique conditions of different communities, including the availability of land, infrastructure capacity, public services, environmental factors, school capacity, and fiscal impacts. This bill could weaken local decision-making and increase administrative and legal burdens on local governments. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution 1517 opposing Virginia General Assembly House Bill 804 and any related legislation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 1517 HB 804 Page 73 of 362 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, February 9, 2026: Resolution # 1517 RESOLUTION OPPOSING HOUSE BILL 804 AND RELATED LEGISLATION WHEREAS, the 2026 Session is considering House Bill 804; and WHEREAS, House Bill 804 would require most local governments in Virginia to meet mandatory statewide housing growth targets beginning in 2028; and WHEREAS, the bill would require localities to submit housing growth plans to the state and allows Boards of Zoning Appeals and courts to override local land use decisions; and WHEREAS, decisions about land use, zoning, and development are fundamental responsibilities of local government and should remain under the authority of locally elected officials who are accountable to their communities; and WHEREAS, House Bill 804 creates a statewide mandate that does not adequately consider the unique conditions of different communities, including the availability of land, infrastructure capacity, public services, environmental factors, school capacity, and fiscal impacts; and WHEREAS, the bill could weaken local decision-making and increase administrative and legal burdens on local governments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Salem does hereby oppose the passage of House Bill 804 and related legislation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Salem respectfully requests that the General Assembly reject House Bill 804 and related legislation, and work with local governments to develop housing policies that respect local authority, recognize regional differences, and support voluntary and collaborative approaches to increasing housing supply. Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: John Saunders – H. Hunter Holliday – Byron Randolph Foley – Anne Marie Green – Renée F. Turk – ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council Page 74 of 362 Item #: 6.C. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 1518 - Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan - 2025 Update Consider adoption of Resolution 1518 accepting the Roanoke Valley–Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan - 2025 Update. SUBMITTED BY: Amanda McGee, AICP, Director of Community Development, Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional Commission SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 2025 Hazard Mitigation Plan Staff Report and Executive Summary The Hazard Mitigation Plan fulfills the Federal requirements for the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The plan identifies hazards; estimates losses; and establishes community goals, objectives and mitigation activities that are appropriate for the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany region and the various organizations which are represented in the plan. The plan was last updated and adopted in 2019. These plans must be updated every five years. The 2019 plan expired in September 2024. An adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan allows local governments to apply for disaster mitigation funds which become available following a natural disaster. In September 2024 Hurricane Helene struck Virginia and received a federal disaster declaration. Quick adoption of this plan update is important for those local governments which are applying for funds associated with the Hurricane Helene disaster. This plan incorporates the following jurisdictions. All of these jurisdictions have been active participants in the plan: Alleghany County Botetourt County Craig County Roanoke County City of Covington City of Roanoke City of Salem Town of Buchanan Town of Clifton Forge Town of Fincastle Town of Vinton Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Western Virginia Water Authority The plan also covers the geographic area of the Towns of New Castle and Iron Gate. While New Page 75 of 362 Castle and Iron Gate did not meet the threshold of participation in this plan, their emergency services efforts operate jointly with Craig County and Alleghany County respectively. Required Action This plan requires adoption through resolution. Resolution text is enclosed. Executive Summary Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan This chapter provides a summary of the planning process and outlines opportunities for improvement in future iterations of the plan. Planning efforts began in 2024 and were completed in late 2025, with adoption expected in December 2025. One round of public input was held which included a public online survey and direct stakeholder outreach. The chapter also lays out the adoption and implementation process. Participating governments agree to an annual update of project progress which will be facilitated by the Regional Commission. Chapter 2: The Regional Profile This chapter describes the planning region. Key factors included in the chapter are existing infrastructure, topography, and economic factors as well as a definition of critical and vulnerable facilities. Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Hazards identified in this chapter include: Earthquake Extreme Temperature Flooding Hurricane and Tropical Storm Geologic Hazards Wildfire Wind Event Winter Storm While many of these definitions are clear, some are not. • Extreme Temperature: This hazard includes extreme heat and extreme cold. • Geologic Hazards: This includes karst, which gives rise to sinkholes, and landslides. • Wind Event: This includes straight line winds and tornadoes. Additionally, two hazards are not assessed in the risk assessment. These are drought, which is addressed through state-mandated water supply plans; and pandemic. Historical events are surveyed in this chapter. High hazard potential dams are also inventoried in this chapter. Chapter 4: Risk Assessment This chapter contains the risk assessment model for the plan, which guides future recommendations and priorities. Outcomes from the model are included in the table below. More detail regarding each hazard and the logic for the rankings is included in the relevant subsections of the chapter. Flooding and Wind Events were the two highest ranked hazards across the region. Page 76 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment This chapter contains individual sections for each participating local government and details of their budgets, their staffing relevant to disaster mitigation and response, and their participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mutual aid agreements and other resources are also captured. Chapter 6: Mitigation Goals and Strategies This chapter outlines the goals and strategies for mitigation efforts in the region. In developing mitigation strategies for the region, a wide range of activities were considered in order to achieve the goals and to lessen the vulnerability of the area to the impact of natural hazards. Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans This chapter includes individual mitigation action plans for each participating jurisdiction. All identified projects are dependent upon funding availability. Appendices The plan contains supporting documentation in multiple appendices. Supporting documentation includes: outputs from public engagement efforts; flood modeling; critical and vulnerable facilities Page 77 of 362 lists; wildfire incidence reports and modeling; dam inundation mapping and dam safety data; worksheets from steering committee members; and other documentation. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Resolution 1518 accepting the Roanoke Valley–Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan - 2025 Update. . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Final Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.14.26 2. Resolution 1518- HMP 2025 Page 78 of 362 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2025 UPDATE Page 79 of 362 i Staff Contributors: Amanda McGee, Director of Community Development Jon Stanton, Transportation Planner II Shira Goldman, Regional Planner I Kevin Jenks, Regional Planner I With special thanks to: Cole Taggart, VDEM Daniel Murray, Botetourt County Page 80 of 362 ii Terms and Definitions Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) The codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Community Rating System (CRS) A voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management practices that exceed the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) This act requires state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal grant assistance. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) A United States government agency that helps people before, during, and after disasters. FEMA's mission is to improve the nation's ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all hazards. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Official map of a community on which FEMA has delineated the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) A United States government agency that manages and archives environmental data. NCEI's data includes information about the climate, oceans, coasts, and the Earth's surface. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) A United States government agency that studies and predicts changes in the weather, climate, oceans, and coasts. A branch of the Department of Commerce. National Weather Service (NWS) A United States government agency that provides weather forecasts and warnings. The NWS is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is a branch of the Department of Commerce. Roanoke Valley – Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) One of 21 Virginia Planning District Commissions established by the General Assembly to promote regional cooperation between local governments. RVARC members include the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, and Franklin, the cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem, and the towns of Clifton Forge, Vinton, and Rocky Mount. Page 81 of 362 iii Table of Contents CHAPTER 1. THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 ADOPTION OF THIS PLAN .............................................................................................................. 1-7 1.4 FUTURE UPDATES ....................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.5 IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................................. 1-9 CHAPTER 2. THE REGIONAL PROFILE ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 THE PLANNING REGION ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 INFRASTRUCTURE AND CRITICAL FACILITIES ..................................................................................... 2-11 CHAPTER 3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 HAZARDS FOR ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 EARTHQUAKE ............................................................................................................................ 3-5 3.3 EXTREME TEMPERATURE ............................................................................................................. 3-11 3.4 FLOODING ............................................................................................................................. 3-15 3.5 HURRICANE AND TROPICAL STORM ............................................................................................... 3-41 3.6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................ 3-44 3.7 WILDFIRE ............................................................................................................................... 3-47 3.8 WIND EVENT ........................................................................................................................... 3-48 3.9 WINTER STORM ....................................................................................................................... 3-53 3.10 HAZARDS NOT ASSESSED ........................................................................................................... 3-55 CHAPTER 4. RISK ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 DISASTER RANKINGS ................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 EARTHQUAKE ............................................................................................................................ 4-7 4.3 EXTREME TEMPERATURE ............................................................................................................. 4-12 4.4 FLOODING ............................................................................................................................. 4-19 4.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................ 4-26 4.6 WILDFIRE ............................................................................................................................... 4-35 4.7 WIND EVENT ........................................................................................................................... 4-41 4.8 WINTER STORM ....................................................................................................................... 4-45 CHAPTER 5. CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 ALLEGHANY COUNTY .................................................................................................................. 5-3 5.3 CITY OF COVINGTON ................................................................................................................... 5-6 5.4 TOWN OF CLIFTON FORGE ............................................................................................................ 5-9 5.5 BOTETOURT COUNTY................................................................................................................. 5-11 5.6 TOWN OF BUCHANAN ............................................................................................................... 5-14 5.7 TOWN OF FINCASTLE ................................................................................................................. 5-15 5.8 TOWN OF TROUTVILLE ............................................................................................................... 5-16 5.9 CRAIG COUNTY ....................................................................................................................... 5-17 5.10 ROANOKE COUNTY ................................................................................................................... 5-20 5.11 CITY OF ROANOKE .................................................................................................................... 5-24 Page 82 of 362 iv 5.12 CITY OF SALEM ........................................................................................................................ 5-31 5.13 TOWN OF VINTON..................................................................................................................... 5-34 5.14 ROANOKE VALLEY-ALLEGHANY REGIONAL COMMISSION .................................................................... 5-38 5.15 ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY ...................................................................................... 5-42 5.16 WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY .......................................................................................... 5-43 CHAPTER 6. MITIGATION GOALS AND STRATEGIES ........................................................................ 6-1 6.1 IDENTIFIED GOALS ...................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 REGIONAL STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................ 6-2 6.3 ALL HAZARDS ........................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.4 EARTHQUAKE ............................................................................................................................ 6-4 6.5 EXTREME TEMPERATURE ............................................................................................................... 6-4 6.6 FLOODING ............................................................................................................................... 6-5 6.7 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................................. 6-7 6.8 WIND ...................................................................................................................................... 6-7 6.9 WILDFIRE ................................................................................................................................. 6-8 6.10 WINTER STORM ......................................................................................................................... 6-8 CHAPTER 7. MITIGATION ACTION PLANS ....................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION .................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 ALLEGHANY COUNTY .................................................................................................................. 7-2 7.3 CITY OF COVINGTON ................................................................................................................... 7-6 7.4 TOWN OF CLIFTON FORGE .......................................................................................................... 7-11 7.5 BOTETOURT COUNTY................................................................................................................. 7-16 7.6 TOWN OF BUCHANAN ............................................................................................................... 7-22 7.7 TOWN OF FINCASTLE ................................................................................................................. 7-26 7.8 TOWN OF TROUTVILLE ............................................................................................................... 7-29 7.9 CRAIG COUNTY ....................................................................................................................... 7-31 7.10 ROANOKE COUNTY ................................................................................................................... 7-35 7.11 CITY OF ROANOKE .................................................................................................................... 7-42 7.12 CITY OF SALEM ........................................................................................................................ 7-50 7.13 TOWN OF VINTON..................................................................................................................... 7-55 7.14 ROANOKE VALLEY-ALLEGHANY REGIONAL COMMISSION .................................................................... 7-61 7.15 ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY ...................................................................................... 7-64 7.16 WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY .......................................................................................... 7-66 REFERENCES APPENDIX LIST Page 83 of 362 v Figures Figure 1: Timeline of the Plan .................................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2: Concern About Future Disaster Events ...................................................................... 1-6 Figure 3: The Planning Region .................................................................................................. 2-1 Figure 4: River Basins and Flood Areas .................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 5: Regional Topography .................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 6: NRI Social Vulnerability Rating ................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 7: Regional Transportation Facilities ............................................................................. 2-12 Figure 8: Regional Transit Connections ................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 9: Modified Mercalli Intensity Levels\ .............................................................................. 3-6 Figure 10: Virginia Seismic Zones, Virginia Department of Energy ........................................... 3-7 Figure 11: Community Intensity Map, New Castle Earthquake 2019 ......................................... 3-8 Figure 12: Community Intensity Map, Roanoke County Earthquake 2021 ................................ 3-9 Figure 13: Community Intensity Map, North Carolina Earthquake 2020 .................................. 3-10 Figure 14: WBGT vs Heat Index, Weather.gov ........................................................................ 3-11 Figure 15: WBGT and Safety ................................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 16: Extreme Cold Days by Year, Roanoke, VA ............................................................. 3-14 Figure 17: Extreme Heat Days by Year, Roanoke, VA ............................................................. 3-14 Figure 18: Dam Classifications, FEMA .................................................................................... 3-34 Figure 19: Karst Map, VDEQ ................................................................................................... 3-44 Figure 20: EF Ratings Definitions, Weather.gov ...................................................................... 3-48 Figure 21: Tornado Paths, NOAA ............................................................................................ 3-51 Figure 22: NESIS Scale ........................................................................................................... 3-53 Figure 23: Water Supply Planning Areas, DEQ ....................................................................... 3-55 Figure 24: Earthquake Risk Mapping, USGS ............................................................................ 4-9 Figure 25: Urban Heat Island Effect, City of Roanoke ............................................................. 4-14 Figure 26: USGS Sinkhole Hotspots, Accessed 2025 ............................................................. 4-29 Figure 27: Regional Critical Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Susceptible Areas. .......... 4-30 Figure 28: Regional Vulnerable Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Susceptible Areas ..... 4-31 Figure 29: Landslide Susceptibility Model in the Region ......................................................... 4-32 Figure 30: Characteristic Fire Intensity Scale, VDOF .............................................................. 4-35 Figure 31: Total Mileage by Locality in 2024, VDOT ................................................................ 4-47 Page 84 of 362 vi Tables Table 1: Steering Committee ...................................................................................................... 1-3 Table 2: Average High and Low Temperatures .......................................................................... 2-4 Table 3: Population Projections by Locality, CEDS 2025 ........................................................... 2-6 Table 4: Population Distribution by Age, CEDS 2025 ................................................................ 2-6 Table 5: Median Household Income, American Community Survey .......................................... 2-6 Table 6: 50 Largest Regional Employers ................................................................................... 2-7 Table 7: Number of Licensed and Staffed Beds in Area Hospitals, 2025 ................................... 2-8 Table 8: Priority Project Categories, CEDS 2025 ....................................................................... 2-8 Table 9: Regional Sewer and Septic Needs, VDH ................................................................... 2-14 Table 10: 2023 Tax Revenues from Travel, VTC...................................................................... 2-15 Table 11: Hazard Events and Locations ..................................................................................... 3-2 Table 12: FEMA Disaster Declarations since 2018 .................................................................... 3-4 Table 13: Flood Events per the NCEI Database, 2019-2024 ................................................... 3-19 Table 14: High Hazard Potential Dams .................................................................................... 3-38 Table 15: Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, National Weather Service ........................... 3-41 Table 16: Infections, Hospitalizations, and Deaths due to COVID-19, 2020-2021 ................... 3-57 Table 17: All Hazards Ranking Table ......................................................................................... 4-4 Table 18: Expected Annual Loss and Exposure Values for Earthquake, NRI ............................ 4-7 Table 19: Annualized Frequency Values for Earthquakes, NRI .................................................. 4-8 Table 20: Homes Built Before 1970, ACS 5-Year Estimate 2023 ............................................. 4-10 Table 21: Hazard Ranking for Earthquake ............................................................................... 4-11 Table 22: Expected Annual Loss for Cold Wave, NRI .............................................................. 4-13 Table 23: Annualized Frequency of Cold Waves, NRI ............................................................. 4-15 Table 24: Social Vulnerability, NRI ........................................................................................... 4-15 Table 25: Vulnerable Populations by Age ................................................................................. 4-17 Table 26: Heating Fuel Source by Locality, ACS 5-year Estimates .......................................... 4-17 Table 27: Hazard Ranking for Extreme Temperature ............................................................... 4-18 Table 28: Estimated Annual Loss for Flooding, NRI ................................................................. 4-20 Table 29: WVWA Facilities in the Floodplain ............................................................................ 4-21 Table 30: Annualized Frequency for Flooding, NRI .................................................................. 4-21 Table 31: Repetitive Loss Structures by Locality, FEMA .......................................................... 4-23 Table 32: Hazard Ranking Table for Flooding .......................................................................... 4-25 Table 33: Expected Annual Loss, NRI ...................................................................................... 4-27 Table 34: Events on Record 2010-2021, NRI .......................................................................... 4-28 Table 35: Critical Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Susceptible Areas by Location ......... 4-33 Table 36: Vulnerable Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Susceptible Areas by Location .. 4-33 Table 37: Hazard Ranking for Geologic Hazards ..................................................................... 4-34 Table 38: Characteristic Fire Intensity, VDOF .......................................................................... 4-36 Table 39: Expected Annual Loss for Wildfire, National Risk Index ........................................... 4-37 Table 40: Annualized Frequency Value for Wildfire, NRI .......................................................... 4-38 Table 41: Housing Unit Risk, Virginia Department of Forestry ................................................. 4-39 Table 42: Hazard Ranking Table for Wildfire ............................................................................ 4-40 Table 43: Expected Annual Loss for Wind Events, NRI ........................................................... 4-41 Table 44: Annualized Frequency Value for Wind Events, NRI ................................................. 4-42 Page 85 of 362 vii Table 45: Mobile and Manufactured Homes, ACS 2019-2023 Estimates ................................ 4-43 Table 46: Hazard Ranking for Wind Events ............................................................................. 4-44 Table 47: Costs of a Winter Weather Event ............................................................................. 4-45 Table 48: Hazard Ranking for Winter Storm ............................................................................ 4-48 Table 49: Comparison of Revenue Across RVARC Member Local Governments ..................... 5-2 Table 50: Alleghany County Budget 2023, Commonwealth of Virginia ...................................... 5-3 Table 51: City of Covington Budget 2024 ................................................................................... 5-6 Table 52: Adopted Budget Town of Clifton Forge, 2025 ............................................................. 5-9 Table 53: Botetourt County Budget, 2024 ................................................................................ 5-11 Table 54: Craig County Budget 2024 ....................................................................................... 5-17 Table 55: Roanoke County Revenues, 2024 ........................................................................... 5-20 Table 56: City of Roanoke Revenues 2023 .............................................................................. 5-24 Table 57: City of Salem Revenues 2024 .................................................................................. 5-31 Table 58: RVARC Budget FY2026 ........................................................................................... 5-39 Page 86 of 362 Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-1 Chapter 1. The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1.1 Overview of the Plan The purpose of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Hazard Mitigation Plan is to fulfill the Federal requirements for the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The plan identifies hazards; estimates losses; and establishes community goals, objectives and mitigation activities that are appropriate for the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany region and the various organizations which are represented in this document. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires that local governments, as a condition of receiving federal disaster mitigation funds, have a mitigation plan that: describes the process for identifying hazards, risks and vulnerabilities; identifies and prioritizes mitigation actions; encourages the development of local mitigation; and provides technical support for those efforts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines pre-disaster mitigation as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event. Mitigation, also known as prevention, encourages long-term reduction of hazard vulnerability. Mitigation should be cost-effective, appropriate for the community, and environmentally sound. Mitigation activities can protect critical and vulnerable community facilities, reduce exposure to liability, and minimize community disruption resulting from natural disasters. The goal of mitigation is to save lives and reduce property damage, which in turn can reduce the cost and impact of disasters across communities. This plan incorporates the following jurisdictions. All of these jurisdictions have been active participants in the plan. Alleghany County Botetourt County Craig County Roanoke County City of Covington City of Roanoke City of Salem Town of Buchanan Town of Clifton Forge Town of Fincastle Town of Vinton Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Western Virginia Water Authority The plan also covers the geographic area of the Towns of New Castle and Iron Gate. While New Castle and Iron Gate did not meet the threshold of participation in this plan, their emergency services efforts operate jointly with Craig County and Alleghany County respectively. Page 87 of 362 Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-2 1.2 Planning Process The Steering Committee for this effort was made up of jurisdiction representatives and state and federal agency representatives. However, consultation with numerous community stakeholders occurred during planning. Public input was also a key element of the plan. The full details of steering committee meetings, stakeholder engagement, and broader public input efforts are available in Appendix A: Public Engagement and Appendix B: Survey Results. Figure 1: Timeline of the Plan Update Priorities Proposed timelines for this process originally began in August 2023. However, numerous staffing challenges delayed the start of work on this effort until August 2024 – one month before the expiration of the 2019 plan. Additionally, new and more rigorous federal guidelines for document development meant that large sections of this plan were developed from scratch. Additional changes in local and regional staffing continued throughout the planning process. Additionally, in September 2024, at the same time that the first stakeholder meeting was being convened, Hurricane Helene struck Southwest Virginia. While most of the localities represented by this plan sustained minimal damage, regional stakeholders were heavily involved in disaster response efforts. As a result of all of these challenges, the primary focus of this update is in right-sizing a new regional vision of pre-disaster hazard mitigation and rebuilding programs and relationships between jurisdictions and stakeholders. Page 88 of 362 Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-3 Table 1: Steering Committee Locality Representatives Locality Representative Alleghany County Jonathan Fitch, Director of Public Safety Melissa Munsey, Assistant to the County Administrator City of Covington Allen Dressler, City Manager Christopher Smith, Chief of Police & Public Safety Director Town of Clifton Forge Chuck Unroe, Town Manager Maria Saxton, Director of Planning and Community Development Town of Iron Gate Kawhana Persinger, Mayor Botetourt County Daniel Murray, Emergency Manager Jason Ferguson, Fire and EMS Chief Nicole Pendleton, Director of Community Development Matt Lewis, Operations Support Coordinator Nick Baker, Planner II Town of Buchanan Jon Elistad, Town Manager Angela Lawrence, Former Town Manager Town of Fincastle Melanie Young McFadyen, Town Manager Town of Troutville Michael Mansfield, Mayor Craig County Dan Collins, County Administrator Darryl Humphreys, Emergency Management Coordinator Roanoke County Tarek Moneir, Director of Development Services David Henderson, County Engineer (Retired) Cindy Linkenhoker, Stormwater Program Manager Butch Workman, Stormwater Operations Manager (Retired) Dustin Campbell, Deputy Chief Nickie Mills, Floodplain Manager Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Ross Hammes, Planner II Page 89 of 362 Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-4 Locality Representatives (continued) Locality Representative City of Roanoke Dwayne D'Ardenne, Tranportation Division Manager Ian Shaw, Stormwater Manager Laura Schmidt, Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator Leigh Anne Weitzenfeld, Sustainability Coordinator Mckenzie Brocker, Water Quality Administrator Ross Campbell, Director of Public Works Trevor Shannon, Battalion Chief DeAnthony Pierce, Building Plans Examiner II City of Salem Jeff Ceaser, Assistant Director Streets and General Maintenance Mary Ellen H Wines, Planning and Zoning Administrator Robert Paxton, Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal Sam Driscoll, Stormwater Manager William L. Simpson, Jr, Assistant Director Community Development Town of Vinton Anita McMillan, Planning and Zoning Director Nathan McClung, Assistant Planning and Zoning Director Special Districts Organization Representative Western Virginia Water Authority Roger Blankenship, Director of Plant Assets Tesha Okioga, Director of Engineering Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Jon Lanford, Chief Executive Officer State/Federal Agency Representatives Agency Representative NOAA Phil Hysell, Warning Coordination Meteorologist Nicholas Fillo, Service Hydrologist VDOF Dennis McCarthy, Area Forester Rachel Kim, Community and Area Forester VDEM Cole Taggart, All Hazards Planner Region 6 Jonathan T. Simmons, Disaster Response and Recovery Officer Mike Guzo, Chief Regional Coordinator Page 90 of 362 Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-5 Steering Committee Between September 2024 and September 2025, the steering committee guided development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan through a series of meetings focused on timeline management, plan content, and stakeholder engagement. The process began with a kickoff meeting to discuss the plan framework, timeline, and outreach strategy. Following Hurricane Helene, FEMA and VDEM emphasized the urgency of applying for disaster mitigation funding. This prompted the committee to prioritize eligibility requirements and expand participation requirements. Meetings which occurred early in 2025 focused on public engagement and outreach while spring sessions reviewed stakeholder input, survey results, and drafts of chapters. By May 2025, the committee began to finalize chapter updates, preparing the plan for locality review and submission to VDEM and FEMA ahead of the federal funding deadline in early December. Due to staffing constraints, VDEM regional staff played a critical role in finalizing the plan, conducting final meetings with locality staff which are documented in Appendix A. The final steering committee meeting was held in September. Stakeholder Engagement In order to maximize stakeholder engagement, staff worked with various stakeholder groups already convening in the region before engaging in some individual outreach. Membership of these groups is included in Appendix A. Groups Consulted • Southwest Virginia Public Works Academy • Roanoke Valley Collective Response Stakeholder Group • Roanoke Foodshed Network • Roanoke Regional Housing Network • Roanoke Valley Transportation Technical Committee Individual Organizations • Alleghany Highlands Chamber of Commerce and Tourism • CHIP of Roanoke Valley • Roanoke Valley Rescue Mission Many additional stakeholders could have been consulted in this planning process. In future updates to the plan, the following stakeholders are recommended for outreach. Some of these stakeholders may be interested in participating as special districts. • Area hospitals, especially Roanoke Memorial Hospital • Alleghany Highlands Economic Development Corporation • Alleghany Highlands Public Schools • Craig-Botetourt Electric Co-op • Local Area Office on Aging • RVARC Committee on Economic Development Strategies • Roanoke Regional Airport • Soil and Water Conservation Districts • Valley Metro Page 91 of 362 Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-6 Public Input Staff worked with the Steering Committee to design an electronic survey that was open from February through March of 2025. Full details of survey responses are available in Appendix B. The survey received 251 responses, a marked improvement from the 2019 plan. Ninety-five percent of respondents identified as White. Only about 1.5 percent of respondents identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish in origin. Response by household income was more varied, about 13 percent of households reporting an income of less than $50,000. Responses were spread across zip codes, but the vast majority of responses were seen in the City of Salem (zip code 24153) with 81 responses. Only 5 respondents stated they relied on public transit. Most of the respondents owned their own home, with about 13 percent renting their home. Flood was the greatest disaster of concern, followed by wind. This echoes results of the vulnerability assessment. Earthquake, Karst and Landslide (the latter two collectively assessed) were marked as of least concern. Generally, respondents expressed increased concerns about natural disasters in the region compared to five years ago. Figure 2: Concern About Future Disaster Events Page 92 of 362 Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-7 1.3 Adoption of this Plan The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) was an active participant in development of this plan and a key funding partner. VDEM representatives have reviewed this plan and provided input on compliance with the 2025 Local Mitigation Policy Guide in the hopes of streamlining the federal approval process. The Policy Guide Checklist with relevant page numbers for each element is included in Appendix I. The plan was submitted for federal approval on October 10, 2025. Approval documentation is included in Appendix J. Resolutions by participating jurisdictions are included in Appendix J. Page 93 of 362 Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-8 1.4 Future Updates This plan will be reviewed every year by the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission for project progress and opportunities for implementation. Annual review will be initiated by Regional Commission staff. Project updates will be provided promptly by representatives from the respective jurisdictions incorporated into this plan. The annual review will result in a project progress document which will be posted on a designated Regional Commission public engagement site and shared with the participating jurisdictions and the Regional Commission board. Public engagement around specific projects that reach implementation stage will be provided by request of the jurisdiction that is primary on the project. Success of the plan will be evaluated during the annual review by tracking progress on proposed projects, including projects completed, substantial milestones reached, and grant dollars secured. Metrics will be included in the annual project progress document but may also be included in the Regional Commission’s annual report and other internal and external communication documents. The Regional Commission will lead the five-year update process. Future five-year updates offer opportunities for planning process improvements. While many of the complications in the planning process for this update were due to staffing issues experienced at the Regional Commission, some other areas for improvement in the next plan update include: • Expanding outreach to unreached stakeholders identified in this planning process and considering the creation of a formal stakeholder committee to inform the plan. • Incorporating new special districts where appropriate and where interest exists. • Increasing public input around project development and offering more consistent outreach throughout the planning process, including at least two community meetings. • Targeting broader public engagement efforts to underrepresented populations and census tracts in innovative ways, including direct mailers and pop-ups in community spaces. • Streamlining the project update process which can be facilitated by annual updates and reviews of this document. In addition, some potential improvements to the vulnerability assessment have been included as projects in Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans. Page 94 of 362 Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-9 1.5 Implementation Opportunities Many of the localities within the planning region may have capacity issues which challenge their ability to implement this plan, as discussed in Chapter 5. One way to address these challenges is to proactively identify projects which could benefit from technical assistance through the Regional Commission. The Regional Commission creates an annual budget and workprogram each year to identify projects of regional significance or which are high priority for local technical assistance. Projects identified in this plan as either of regional significance or as critical to a local government’s ability to address hazards should be considered on an annual basis for incorporation into that document. In the first round of project updates, the Regional Commission will work with member localities to identify candidates for the FY2028 workprogram. This review will be conducted annually. Page 95 of 362 Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-10 [blank] Page 96 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile 2-1 Chapter 2. The Regional Profile 2.1 The Planning Region The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission service area lies in western Virginia and includes the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin and Roanoke; the cities of Covington, Roanoke and Salem; and the towns of Boones Mill, Buchanan, Clifton Forge, Fincastle, Iron Gate, New Castle, Rocky Mount, Troutville, and Vinton. The localities of Franklin County, Boones Mill and Rocky Mount, are also served by West Piedmont Planning District Commission, and are covered by that district’s plan. All other localities within the Roanoke Valley- Alleghany service area will be covered by this document. These are the same localities that participated in the 2006 and 2013 and 2019 iterations of this plan. Communities within the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Region may have vastly different capacities and planning ability, which is reflected in this plan. Unincorporated areas within broader jurisdictions may be referenced where appropriate. Figure 3: The Planning Region Page 97 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile 2-2 Location and Topography The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Region (the region) is on the eastern border of the Appalachian Plateau and the western slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Two major river basins characterize the region. The James River, flowing east through Botetourt County, ultimately reaches the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The Roanoke River flows through the district in a southeasterly direction to North Carolina before reaching the Atlantic. Both river basins serve as development corridors. Although the planning area includes the Roanoke metropolitan area, much of the region is rural. Approximately 212,039 acres of federal land lies within the National Forest and Blue Ridge Parkway system. The predominant physical characteristic of the region is the mountainous terrain. Forty-eight percent of the land area has slopes of 25 percent or greater. Within the region, mountain ridges run southwest to northeast. There are large concentrations of steep land in northern Botetourt County and Alleghany County. A broken ring of steep lands surrounds the Roanoke metropolitan area. Past development has been influenced greatly by topographic characteristics. The higher elevations have remained in open or forest use while the more moderate foothills and river valleys have been developed. Floodplains impose considerable restraints on land development activities. In the past, heavy flooding has caused considerable property damage to existing development in floodplains. The region has several major floodplain areas along the Roanoke, James and Jackson Rivers, and the Peters, Mason, Carvin, Tinker, Glade, Mud Lick and Smith Creeks. Page 98 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile 2-3 Figure 5: Regional Topography Page 99 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-4 Climate The region is located in agricultural zones 7a and 7b and is characterized by hot, wet summers, cold winters with mild to moderate precipitation, and fluctuating shoulder seasons. Summer high temperatures average around the mid-80s across the region, with higher temperatures in the urbanized areas of the Roanoke Valley. Winter low temperatures average in the 40s in the coldest months of December and January, with colder temperatures felt in the higher elevations of the Alleghany Highlands. The area receives significant annual rainfall, with annual averages in the Roanoke Valley typically around 40 inches per year according to National Weather Service records. Table 2: Average High and Low Temperatures Daily average high and low temperatures (°F) High Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Roanoke 46 50 59 69 76 83 86 85 78 68 58 49 Covington 43 46 56 66 74 80 84 82 76 66 56 46 Low Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Roanoke 30 32 40 48 56 64 68 67 60 49 40 34 Covington 27 29 37 46 54 62 66 65 58 47 38 31 Data from Weatherspark.com, accessed 5/15/25. Population In 2023, the overall population of the region was around 280,000 people, with the majority of residents located in the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County. Key demographic factors to assess in a community’s resilience to hazards include age and income. These factors can indicate vulnerability to shocks – for example, a family with children may have a harder time relocating or require more services at a public shelter; the elderly often have special medical needs; and households with low income can face inhibited options post-disaster and require more public assistance. Tables 3 through 5 show basic population data for the region. Much of the population in Alleghany County, Botetourt County, and the Town of Clifton Forge is aging, with the median age being 48 years or older. This is ten years older than the median age across the Commonwealth. As this trend progresses over the lifetime of this planning document, it will likely have impacts on how hazard mitigation and response are carried out in these localities. There is a projected increase in population across the region in the next 25 years. However, some localities, including Alleghany and Craig Counties, are projected to see a fall in population, likely due to aging and internal migration. The National Risk Index displays information about social vulnerability based off the CDC Social Vulnerability Index. Highest levels of social vulnerability occur in the Cities of Roanoke and Covington. Page 100 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-5 Figure 6: NRI Social Vulnerability Rating Page 101 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-6 Table 3: Population Projections by Locality, CEDS 2025 Locality 2023 2030 2040 2050 Alleghany County* 11,479 13,993 12,805 11,809 Botetourt County 33,875 33,556 34,588 36,138 Craig County 4,881 4,528 4,363 4,264 Roanoke County* 89,755 100,027 104,046 109,621 City of Covington 5,671 5,434 5,075 4,792 City of Roanoke 98,677 101,514 102,529 105,079 City of Salem 25,477 25,519 25,438 25,737 Town of Clifton Forge 3,483 - - - Town of Vinton 8,038 - - - RVARC Region 280,336 284,571 288,844 297,440 Virginia 8,657,499 9,129,002 9,759,371 10,535,810 *Excludes Town of Clifton Forge. Excludes Town of Vinton population. Table 4: Population Distribution by Age, CEDS 2025 Locality Alleghany County* 48.1 603 2,268 2,420 3,211 2,338 3,801 53.5 231 607 589 640 524 892 Virginia 38.8 495,281 1,410,160 Table 5: Median Household Income, American Community Survey Locality Median Household Income Alleghany County $ 52,546.00 Botetourt County $ 77,680.00 Craig County $ 66,286.00 Covington City $ 45,737.00 Roanoke City $ 51,523.00 Roanoke County $ 80,872.00 Salem City $ 68,402.00 Page 102 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-7 Development Trends The region contains a significant portion of the Roanoke, Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes the counties of Botetourt, Craig, Roanoke and Franklin, the Cities of Roanoke and Salem. This is the fourth largest MSA in Virginia and the largest in the western half of the state. Most of the region’s largest employers are in the industries of government, healthcare, education, banking and insurance, and retail. Table 6: 50 Largest Regional Employers 1. Roanoke Memorial Community Hospital 26. City of Salem School Board 2. HCA Virginia Health System 27. Carter Machinery Company 3. Roanoke County School Board 28. Marvin Windows 4. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 29. Yokohama Tire Corp. 5. Wal Mart 30. Roanoke College 6. Carilion Services 31. YMCA 7. City of Roanoke 32. Lake Region Medical 8. Roanoke City School Board 33. County of Franklin 9. Kroger 34. VDOT 10. Wells Fargo Bank NA 35. Alleghany Highlands Public Schools 11. County of Roanoke 36. Carilion Healthcare 12. Cornerstone Building Brands Service 37. Dynax America Corporation 13. U.P.S. 38. Adams Construction Company 14. Franklin County School Board 39. Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc. 15. Alliance Group Rock Tenn 40. Steel Dynamics Roanoke Bar Div 16. Altec Industries Inc 41. Coca Cola Bottling Company 17. Friendship Manor 42. Bimbo Bakeries USA INC 18. Postal Service 43. Paychecks Plus 19. Advance Auto Parts 44. Virginia Western Community College 20. Botetourt County School Board 45. Branch Highways 21. Virginia Transformer Corporation 46. County of Botetourt 22. Food Lion 47. Franklin Memorial Hospital 23. Lowes' Home Centers, Inc. 48. US Foodservice 24. Elbit Systems of America - Night Vision 49. Metalsa Roanoke 25. City of Salem 50. Mcdonald’s Source: Virginia Employment Commission, Economic Information & Analytics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 3rd Quarter (July, August, September) 2024. Note: Data includes all localities within Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional Commission service area. Page 103 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-8 Of particular interest to this planning effort is the importance of healthcare to the regional economy. Carilion Medical Center (also known as Roanoke Memorial Hospital) is one of only six Level I Trauma Centers in the Commonwealth. It is also one of only three Level I Pediatric Trauma Centers. Disruptions to service at Roanoke Memorial Hospital can have far-reaching effects across the Southwest Virginia region. Nearby LewisGale Medical Center in Salem is a Level II Trauma Center. Both facilities may provide critical services in disaster events to communities outside of the Roanoke Valley – Alleghany Region. Table 7 shows staffed and licensed beds for area hospitals, which can be used to assess capacity in disaster events. Nearby hospitals outside of the service area include Carilion New River Valley Medical Center, LewisGale Montgomery, Carilion Franklin Memorial, and Carilion Rockbridge Community, and, further afield, Centra General Hospital and UVA Medical Center. Table 7: Number of Licensed and Staffed Beds in Area Hospitals, 2025 Hospital Number of Staffed Beds Number of Licensed Beds Carilion Medical Center 694 752 LewisGale Salem 321 506 LewisGale Alleghany 110 205 Totals 1,125 1,463 The RVARC produces a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy document every five years which should be referenced to better understand the economic picture of the region. Key project areas from the 2025 CEDS are included in Table 8. A full list of projects can be found in the CEDS document. Table 8: Priority Project Categories, CEDS 2025 Priority Project Categories 1. Develop regional broadband infrastructure and increased connectivity. 2. Encourage and develop advanced manufacturing facilities 3. Focus for workforce development programs to meet needs in target industry sectors. 4. Focus on transportation infrastructure: Roanoke- Amtrak, highways, and commuting 5. Continue success in outdoor tourism with regional and local greenway systems, Explore Park 6. Support and encourage industrial site development and upgrades. 7. Develop a wider range of homeownership and rental housing opportunities. 8. Promote and encourage attraction of biotech and life sciences clusters 9. Support local agriculture, growers, and producers. 10. Perform a gap analysis to develop regional quality of life amenities. Page 104 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-9 Local governments were asked to provide building permit data to help clarify development patterns in the region. The following overview reflects building trends including new construction, demolitions, and improved parcels from 2019 to September 2025. Internal tracking systems vary widely among jurisdictions, and in some cases, data are incomplete or inconsistent across time periods. Some localities do not distinguish between types of structures when measuring improvements (e.g. homes vs. mobile home hookups vs. storage units). Others provided only parcel data while some reported only structures built before a certain time, current occupied housing units, or buildings which receive refuse collection. Some localities were not able to provide this data. As a result, the dataset may not capture the full extent of building activity and development across years or jurisdictions. • Alleghany County o 7,123 buildings recorded in the 2019 refuse collection file; 6,439 in the 2025 refuse collection file. o 65 demolitions recorded in this period. • Clifton Forge o There has been very little growth since 1990. o Residential Historic Overlay District with 730 contributing structures; Commercial Historic Overlay District with 77 contributing structures. o Currently 13 churches, 109 commercial buildings, and 140 vacant buildings. • Craig County o 232 building permits from 2019-2025 (over 256 sq ft). o 34 units were demolished in this period. • Roanoke County o 67,425 buildings before 2019. o 72,832 buildings in 2025. o 203 demolitions recorded in this period. • City of Roanoke o 1,018 building permits issued for new residential and commercial structures (including accessory structures and 82 demolitions) since January 1, 2020. • City of Salem o 10,582 parcels (9,565 improved) in 2019. o 10,650 parcels (9,690 improved) in 2025. o 20 demolitions recorded in this period. • Town of Vinton o Steady decline in building permits since 2008. o As of 2022, there were 3,686 occupied housing units. Page 105 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-10 Historic and Cultural Resources Virginia has a deep cultural history, and this portion of Virginia is no exception. The service area is located within Southwest Virginia and shares cultural ties to the wider Appalachian region. For many communities, historic and cultural resources are a catalyst for economic development and source of pride for residents. Historic properties can be located throughout a locality and the number of structures varies widely. The potentially devastating effects that flooding and other disasters can have on historic properties are not always considered in mitigation planning. More information about specific considerations of hazard mitigation on historic properties is included in Chapter 4: Risk Assessment. Local governments should work with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, VDEM, and local preservation groups to identify historic buildings and sites in need of hazard mitigation. These efforts should follow the guidance in Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-6). Page 106 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-11 2.2 Infrastructure and Critical Facilities Infrastructure Several infrastructure elements contribute to a robust regional socioeconomic space. These elements affect how people get around, how they meet basic needs, and how they access employment. Transportation Interstate 64 bisects Alleghany County in an east-west direction while passing through the City of Covington and Town of Clifton Forge. Interstate 81 crosses Botetourt and Roanoke counties in a northeast-southwest direction and includes an urban connector I-581 that links I-81 to the central business district of the City of Roanoke. Other arterial routes in the area include US 11 in Botetourt and Roanoke counties; US 60 in Alleghany County; US 220 passing through Alleghany, Botetourt, and Roanoke counties; US 221 and 460 in Roanoke County; and State Primary Route 311 in Alleghany and Craig counties. Air service is available at the Roanoke Regional Airport that provides nonstop service from Roanoke, Virginia to nine major cities. Rail service for freight is provided by the Buckingham Branch Railroad, CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway. Passenger train service is available from Amtrak at stations in the Town of Clifton Forge and City of Roanoke, and an additional passenger rail station is planned in Christiansburg, with rights-of-way managed by the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority. There are also several fixed-route bus lines in the region. Page 107 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-12 Figure 7: Regional Transportation Facilities Figure 8: Regional Transit Connections Page 108 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-13 Housing The region faces a housing shortage as the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Housing Market Study Analysis (2021). The biggest challenges to the regional housing market are identified as follows: • The Region's population has been slowly but consistently growing over the last 50 years, with the percentage of the elderly population increasing. • One, two, and three-person households comprise the largest share of households in the Region, but over the last five years, more growth has occurred in larger households of four or more people. • The number of vacant units has been increasing in the Region. This, in part, has been driven by the seasonal home market, which accounts for 30% of all vacant units. • Nearly 82% of housing units in the Region were constructed before 1980, leaving the Region with a much older housing stock than what is found in many other parts of the Commonwealth. • Over the last five years, the median gross rent in the Region increased by 14%. The average rent for a single-family home is around $1,000 per month, while rent in multifamily buildings averaged $1,200 per month. • There are significant differences in the percentage of renter of owner households classified as cost burdened across the Region. Approximately 20% of owner households are experiencing some level of cost burden compared to 41% of renters. It is typical to see a broad difference between these two groups, but it also speaks to the need for affordably priced housing for renter households. • The number of renter households that qualify for affordable rental housing at the 30% of AMI level exceeds the number of units available at that price point. There is a projected deficit of 5,324 units, meaning many extremely low-income households are having to spend more than is recommended on housing costs. This further exacerbates housing affordability and cost burden challenges. The CEDS offers a more updated overview of housing statistics, including annual home sales and estimated vacancy rates. Page 109 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-14 Utilities The region contains three major electricity providers, Appalachian Power, Dominion Power, and Craig-Botetourt Electric Co-op. The City of Salem also operates a substation. Roanoke Gas and Columbia Gas are other major energy service providers in the region. This form of infrastructure relies on long, linear facilities often bracketed by substations. The location of these facilities can impact development in the region. Major energy production projects such as large-scale wind and solar are a new type of development that continues to expand in the area. Mountain Valley Pipeline is another key infrastructure project which has provided additional natural gas service to the region. Disruptions to energy can have disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations. Energy service provision is a key first step in post-disaster response, and future involvement of these stakeholders in hazard mitigation plans is recommended. Clean water and sanitation are also key concerns following a disaster event. While regional water supply planning is mandated by the state, a high level overview of drought as a hazard is included in Chapter 3: Hazard Identification. Key players in the provision of water and sanitation include the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA), which provides water and sewer services to much of the service area, including the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, Botetourt County, the Town of Fincastle, and the Town of Vinton. Additionally, the Craig-New Castle PSA, which provides water and sewer services to Craig County and the Town of New Castle, has recently entered into an administration agreement with WVWA. WVWA is a special district included in this plan. Additional water and sewer provision is provided by Alleghany County, the Cities of Covington and Salem, and the Towns of Buchanan, Clifton Forge, Iron Gate, and Troutville. Small private service providers also exist in the region. In December of 2023 the Virginia Department of Health published a report on infrastructure needs which focuses on sewer and on-site facilities such as septic. This report estimates that $288 million of investment are needed to maintain or improve current systems across the RVARC service area. Many sewage processing facilities are located near rivers and streams. Septic systems are also vulnerable to flooding, which can have downstream impacts on water quality and cause ripple effects for the community. These cost estimates are valuable data points in posing future projects and solutions for the region, including hazard mitigation projects. Table 9: Regional Sewer and Septic Needs, VDH Locality Community Needs Onsite Needs Total Needs Alleghany $ 9,344,076.00 $ 18,631,769.00 $ 27,975,845.00 Botetourt $ 6,857,960.00 $ 44,805,866.00 $ 51,663,826.00 Covington $ 5,605,860.00 $ 207,632.00 $ 5,813,492.00 Craig $ - $ 6,752,172.00 $ 6,752,172.00 Roanoke County $ - $ 168,614,006.00 $ 168,614,006.00 Roanoke City $ - $ 9,335,610.00 $ 9,335,610.00 Salem $ 17,593,337.00 $ 569,056.00 $ 18,162,393.00 Total $ 39,401,233.00 $ 248,916,111.00 $ 288,317,344.00 Page 110 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-15 Outdoor Recreation Facilities Outdoor recreation is a key part of the regional economy with more than $42 million in local tax revenue coming from visitors to the region. Greenways and trails are often located in areas particularly vulnerable to disaster events, such as on steep slopes or in floodplains. The Appalachian Trail is a key draw to the region, but other facilities of note include Carvins Cove, the Explore Park, the Roanoke Valley greenway network, the Jackson River Trail, Douthat State Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Table 10: 2023 Tax Revenues from Travel, VTC Locality 2023 Tax Revenue Alleghany $ 1,236,865.00 Botetourt $ 3,104,204.00 Craig $ 145,191.00 Roanoke City $ 24,463,510.00 While much of the public lands in the area are managed by federal and state partners, local governments maintain numerous parks and trails in the region, including the Explore Park, Carvins Cove, and the greenway network. Managing these facilities is a significant part of local budgets, and even relatively mild storm events can have a disproportionate impact on staff time and materials costs. In some cases, greenway and park networks serve as transportation infrastructure for those who use alternative transportation to commute. Page 111 of 362 Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-16 Critical and Vulnerable Facilities Critical Facilities are those that provide services to the public during an emergency. Examples of this include Public Safety structures, Public Assembly Sites & Shelters, Medical Structures, Utility Structures, and Transportation Structures. Vulnerable Facilities are those that will require special attention during an emergency. Examples of this include Large Scale Housing Complexes of 50 or more total units or those with elderly or sick residents, Child / Day Care Facilities, Manufacturing Sites / Warehouses, and Tier 2 Facilities. These definitions collectively fulfill the requirement for critical facilities listings for pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning and the community rating system program. A full listing of Critical and Vulnerable Facilities identified in this plan is included in Appendix G. High hazard dams are also included in this plan and references to these facilities are located in Chapter 3, Section 3.4; Chapter 4, Section 4.3; and Appendix H. Critical Facilities Vulnerable Facilities • Enforcement, etc. • Centers, etc. • Pharmacies etc. • Utility Structures: Pumps, Wells, Water Treatment, Power Generation, etc. • Transit Hubs, Evacuations Routes, etc. • Living Homes, Recovery Care, etc. • Child / Day Care Facilities • Potential for dangerous Materials • Tier 2 Facilities Page 112 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-1 Chapter 3. Hazard Identification 3.1 Hazards for Assessment The region is subject to a variety of hazard events, many of which will be assessed in this document. The following kinds of hazard events have been documented through the NCEI database maintained by NOAA. • Debris Flow • Drought • Extreme Cold/Wind Chill • Flash Flood • Flood • Hail • Heavy Rain • Heavy Snow • High Wind • Lightning • Strong Wind • Thunderstorm Wind • Tornado • Winter Storm • Winter Weather The locations and number of events for each of these hazard events is visible in Table 1: Hazard Events and Locations. The Steering Committee identified several hazards for assessment in the plan based off of this data, federal disaster declarations included in Table 2, and historic hazard assessments. • Extreme Temperature • Flooding • Hurricane and Tropical Storm • Wind Event • Winter Storm Additional hazards which will be assessed will include: • Earthquake • Karst • Landslide • Wildfire Hazards not assessed in this document include drought and pandemics. High hazard potential dams are assessed under flooding unless otherwise noted, with supplementary materials contained in Appendix H. The 2019 Plan details all historic disaster declarations and disaster events by hazard. This document will only provide details around disaster events which have occurred since the data collected in the 2019 Plan, or historic events which can provide key learning for hazard mitigation. A comprehensive record of all events since data collection began is not the aim of this chapter. Page 113 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-2 Table 11: Hazard Events and Locations Event Types Events Event Types Events ROANOKE CITY 1 (ZONE) 1 Drought 11 (ZONE) 1 BOTETOURT (ZONE) 3 (ZONE) 5 CRAIG (ZONE) 3 (ZONE) 5 Chill 3 (ZONE) 20 ALLEGHANY CO. 2 CITY 1 CRAIG CO. 1 (ZONE) 2 ROANOKE CITY 6 (ZONE) 3 Page 114 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-3 Event Types Events Event Types Events Flood 37 Wind 168 Hail 27 CITY 2 ROANOKE CITY 2 (ZONE) 6 SALEM CITY 2 (ZONE) 7 ALLEGHANY CO. 1 (ZONE) 7 CRAIG CO. 3 (ZONE) 2 ROANOKE CO. 4 (ZONE) 1 Page 115 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-4 Table 12: FEMA Disaster Declarations since 2018 Declaration Date Incident Type Title or Name Affected Areas Friday, April 4, 2025 Severe Storm WINTER FLOODING Craig (County) Tuesday, October 1, 2024 Tropical Storm TROPICAL STORM HELENE Botetourt (County) Sunday, September 29, 2024 Tropical Storm POST-TROPICAL CYCLONE HELENE Craig (County) Thursday, April 2, 2020 Biological COVID-19 PANDEMIC Alleghany (County) Friday, March 13, 2020 Biological COVID-19 Page 116 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-5 3.2 Earthquake Definition of Hazard An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the Earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the Earth's surface. Ground shaking from earthquakes can collapse buildings and bridges; disrupt gas, electric, and phone service; and sometimes trigger landslides, avalanches, flash floods, and fires. Buildings with foundations resting on unconsolidated landfill and other unstable soil as well as trailers and homes not tied to their foundations are at risk because they can be shaken off their mountings during an earthquake. When an earthquake occurs in a populated area, it may cause deaths and injuries and extensive property damage. Ground movement during an earthquake is seldom the direct cause of death or injury. Most earthquake-related injuries result from falls, collapsing walls, flying glass, and falling objects. Much of the damage in earthquakes is predictable and preventable. Primary impacts from earthquakes are structural damage and loss of life. There are two common ways of measuring earthquake intensity. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is a value assigned to a specific site after an earthquake has occurred, and is assigned based on the severity of the effects of the event. The lower numbers of the intensity scale generally deal with the way the earthquake is felt by people. The higher numbers of the scale are based on observed structural damage. Structural engineers usually contribute information for assigning intensity values of VIII or above. In contrast, the more common Richter scale is used to scientifically measure an earthquake’s magnitude, regardless of impact, based on the energy released by the event. The Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory (VTSO) operates a digital seismic network with stations in Virginia and southern West Virginia. Along with other southeastern regional seismic networks and the U.S. National Seismic Network (USNSN), VTSO contributes to earthquake monitoring, information dissemination and seismic hazard assessment objectives in the southeastern United States. In 1991, Virginia Tech combined with other institutions in North Carolina and Tennessee to form the Southern Appalachian Cooperative Seismic Network to coordinate earthquake monitoring and data exchange. Page 117 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-6 people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. plaster. Damage slight. in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. greatly. Figure 9: Modified Mercalli Intensity Levels\ Page 118 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-7 Historic Event Descriptions The southern portion of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Region is part of the Giles County Seismic Zone, including the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the Counties of Craig, Roanoke, and the southern portion of Botetourt, and the Town of Vinton. Map 1 shows data collected by the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, where historical event information was used to approximate the three seismic zones across the Commonwealth. Figure 10: Virginia Seismic Zones, Virginia Department of Energy Since 1774, the year of the earliest documented Virginia earthquake, there have been over 300 earthquakes in or near the Commonwealth. Of those, 18 earthquakes had reports of intensity VI or higher. The largest earthquake in Virginia was the 1897 Giles County shock which registered an intensity of VIII. It was felt over 11 states (approximately 280,000 square miles). The estimated magnitude for this event was 5.8, making it the third largest earthquake in the eastern United States in the last 200 years (second largest in the southeastern U.S.). On August 23, 2011, a magnitude 5.8 earthquake occurred 5 miles south-southwest of Mineral, Virginia (150 miles northeast of Roanoke). The Mineral event was Virginia’s strongest earthquake in over a century. While several small quakes have occurred, no major earthquakes have occurred in Virginia since 2011. There have only been two earthquakes with epicenters in the planning area since the last update of this plan. One occurred near New Castle at a magnitude of 2.5 in December of 2019. The second occurred near the Roanoke County and Montgomery County border at a magnitude of 2.6 in September of 2021. Neither registered as higher than III or IV on the Mercalli Intensity Scale. One earthquake affected the region with an epicenter outside of the region. On August 9, Page 119 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-8 2020 a magnitude 5.1 earthquake struck near the Virginia border of North Carolina, with effects felt throughout the study area. There has not been a Presidential or State Disaster Declaration in the planning region for earthquakes. Figure 11: Community Intensity Map, New Castle Earthquake 2019 Page 120 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-9 Figure 12: Community Intensity Map, Roanoke County Earthquake 2021 Page 121 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-10 Figure 13: Community Intensity Map, North Carolina Earthquake 2020 Page 122 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-11 3.3 Extreme Temperature Definition of Hazard As described in Section 3.1, for the purposes of this plan Extreme Temperature will mean both extreme heat and extreme cold. While some strategies to address extreme heat and extreme cold may differ, the general strategies of weatherization, temperature control in the home, and emergency shelters remain consistent across these disaster events. There is no unified definition of extreme heat, and there are numerous ways to evaluate potential heat stress. The wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) is an international standard of measurement that is often utilized by athletic programs and is best suited for those performing strenuous activity outside. This measurement factors in solar radiation, temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed. The heat index, more commonly seen in cell phone applications available to average citizens, does not factor in solar radiation or wind speed, but does factor in relative humidity. This is a more suitable temperature for assessing impacts of heat on indoor, unconditioned spaces.0F 1 The climate of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Region is subject to high levels of humidity, meaning that actual WBGT is likely higher than both the measured temperature and the heat index. Studies of heat impacts do exist in the study area and focus primarily on urban heat island effect. Figure 14: WBGT vs Heat Index, Weather.gov Per the EPA, heat is the leading cause of weather-related death in the United States.1F 2 Further methods of evaluating heat and heat impacts should be assessed. For the purposes of this plan, extreme heat will be defined as daytime high temperatures in excess of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Extreme heat most often affects individual health, especially of the elderly, children, homeless populations, and people with underlying health issues, but may also affect worker productivity, infrastructure such as roads and the electric grid, and cause excess energy consumption. Such impacts are further assessed in Chapter 4. 1 (National Weather Service) 2 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2025) Page 123 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-12 Figure 15: WBGT and Safety Similar to extreme heat, there is no unified definition of extreme cold. The way heat or cold is felt likely depends on a variety of factors, including acclimatization of the individual. Factors such as wind speed and humidity can affect how cold is felt in the body the same way that they can exacerbate high temperatures. Extreme cold can have additional impacts on infrastructure beyond those experienced with extreme heat, including most commonly frozen pipes. Frozen pipes can cause a lack of access to clean, potable water, as seen in Richmond in January of 2025, and extensive property damage if not quickly identified and addressed. More information on impacts of extreme cold is available in Chapter 4. For the purposes of this plan, extreme cold will be defined as daytime high temperatures of 32 degrees or less. Collectively, extreme temperature will be defined as days when high temperatures are greater than 90 degrees or less than 32 degrees Fahrenheit. As this is the first time this hazard has been assessed in an RVARC plan, all historic instances for which there is existing data are included in this section. Historic Event Descriptions Historical temperature data is available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) going back to 1948. Since that time, the Roanoke region has experienced 1,855 days of temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit and 510 days of highs at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Extreme heat days average around 24 days per year over this time period. In the last ten years, extreme heat days have averaged 32 days per year. In contrast, the annual average number of extreme cold days has been only 7 days per year, with the number dropping to 5 days a year in the past ten years. The Commonwealth has declared a state of emergency in the past due to winter weather, but no declarations in the past five years dealt solely with extreme cold. Winter weather is further analyzed later in this chapter. Page 124 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-13 Average daily lows can better reflect extreme heat in some cases, especially in urban areas. The City of Roanoke undertook a heat island mapping study which provided more insight into the effects of heat on City residents. More details of this mapping can be found on the Urban Heat Island Effect page of the City’s website. Further discussion of the City’s work in this area will be included in Chapter 4: Risk Assessment. Page 125 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-14 Figure 16: Extreme Cold Days by Year, Roanoke, VA Figure 17: Extreme Heat Days by Year, Roanoke, VA 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 19 4 8 19 5 1 19 5 4 19 5 7 19 6 0 19 6 3 19 6 6 19 6 9 19 7 2 19 7 5 19 7 8 19 8 1 19 8 4 19 8 7 19 9 0 19 9 4 19 9 7 20 0 0 20 0 4 20 0 8 20 1 1 20 1 4 20 1 7 20 2 2 Extreme Cold Days by Year Extreme Cold Days Number of Days 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 19 4 8 19 5 1 19 5 4 19 5 7 19 6 0 19 6 3 19 6 6 19 6 9 19 7 2 19 7 5 19 7 8 19 8 1 19 8 4 19 8 7 19 9 0 19 9 3 19 9 6 19 9 9 20 0 2 20 0 5 20 0 8 20 1 1 20 1 4 20 1 7 20 2 0 20 2 3 Extreme Heat Days by Year Number of Hot Days Page 126 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-15 3.4 Flooding Definition of Hazard Widespread flooding or flash flooding impacts a large portion of the region. Watersheds in the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany region are typical of the Blue Ridge region in which smaller streams collect water which then flows through steep terrain, picking up velocity, and into the valleys and flatlands along major rivers where development has occurred. The flood plains throughout these mountainous areas are narrow, averaging less than 250 feet in most areas. These are also the only flat areas where development could take place in this mountainous region. Most flood- producing storms generally occur in the winter and spring. However, flooding due to intense local thunderstorms or tropical disturbances can occur in any season. Flood hazard areas, along with repetitive loss clusters, dams, flood prone roads, rain gauges and other relevant spatial information for each jurisdiction participating in the plan are mapped in Appendix D: Flood Hazard Areas. It is important to note that the Regional Commission was not provided data regarding repetitive loss property locations by FEMA due to a variety of issues, including the federal shutdown in 2025. Contact was made to FEMA during drafting and again in the revision process. The data in Appendix D has been provided piecemeal from local governments where it has been updated and otherwise reflects data available from the 2019 update. Historic Event Descriptions Alleghany County has experienced floods since its original settlement. Large floods occurred in 1877, 1913, 1936, 1969, 1972, 1973 and 1985. Hurricane Jeanne caused severe storms and flooding in October 2004. Flood damage in the area is typically concentrated in and near Covington and Clifton Forge. Because of the rural nature of the county, damages from flooding are widespread. Damage occurs to roads, bridges, and public facilities such as schools. The Jackson River flows through the City of Covington, towns of Clifton Forge and Iron Gate and the communities of Low Moor and Selma. Gathright Dam, constructed in 1974, partially controls flooding along the Jackson River. Despite this, floods still occur. Covington experienced large floods on November 1877, March 1913, March 1936, March 1967, August 1969 (Hurricane Camille), 1972 (Tropical Storm Agnes), March and December 1973, and November 1985. Tropical Storm Agnes was the most severe of the events with as much as one-third of the city underwater. In all, one church, three public buildings, two industrial plants, 8 commercial buildings, and 490 private residences were damaged. In November 1985, a 100-year frequency rainstorm caused a reported $17 million in damages in the City of Covington. The US Army Corps of Engineers, 1986 report titled Flood Control Study, Jackson River, Lower Jackson Street Residential Area, Covington, provides information about the major flood that occurred in November 1985. An approximate 90-year flood event resulted in residential, commercial, and municipal damage in the lower Jackson Street / Rayon Terrace neighborhood. Residential losses included yard, basement, and first-floor damage in sixty-four (64) homes and four (4) businesses. Municipal damage included debris in the city park, a sewage pump station and damage to a storm sewer. Total residential, commercial and municipal damage were estimated at $544,000. Structural and non-structural alternatives for this section of the city were explored in a cost-benefit analysis and found to be infeasible. Page 127 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-16 Floods used in the 1978 Federal Insurance Administration study to describe the impact on the town of Clifton Forge include the Flood of 1950 and Flood of 1969 - both of which occurred prior to construction of Gathright Dam. The 1950 flood included the flooding of basements, a lumberyard, and the armory. The town’s water supply was cut off when two water mains were washed away. Smith Creek flows north to south though the residential and commercial center of the Town of Clifton Forge. In Clifton Forge, residential, public, and commercial development are concentrated on both sides of Smith Creek. A number of large commercial buildings in the downtown area have been constructed directly over Smith Creek. Floods have inundated portions of this land in the past, and a substantially greater area is within reach of larger floods in the future. The 1969 Smith Creek flooding caused the evacuation of 40 families and caused over $200,000 in damage to town owned property. Numerous flood events have been recorded in the Upper James River Basin in the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt and Craig. The following water bodies in the basin have flooded: Dunlap Creek, Potts Creek, Cowpasture River, Johns Creek, Craig Creek, and Catawba Creek. Records show a history of major and frequent flooding. One of the worst floods to occur in Tinker Creek in Botetourt County was in 1940. Another large flood occurred in 1961 along Buffalo Creek in what is considered to be one of the worst storms of record. The unincorporated communities of Eagle Rock, Glen Wilton, and Gala located in Botetourt County along the James River have all experienced flooding. One of the worst floods for the James River occurred as a result of Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972. Glen Wilton was isolated in 1972 due to floodwaters covering the only road access to the community. The Botetourt Communities of Strom, Lithia, Cloverdale, and Coyner have also been victims of floodwaters. A 1940 event caused severe damage in the Tinker Creek basin. Buffalo Creek was impacted by a flood in 1961. Historic floods in the community of Eagle Rock occurred in November 1985, November 1877, March 1913, June 1972, April 1978, March 1936, and August 1969. The November 1985 and April 1978 floods were the only two significant flood events to affect the Eagle Rock area since the completion of Gathright Dam. The community of Eagle Rock was severely flooded during the November 1985 storm causing substantial damage to the commercial district and to many residences. The 1985 storm was the storm of record with an exceedance frequency of 460 years. Seventeen commercial properties and about 16 residences were damaged during the November 1985 flood. The Town of Troutville has been damaged by flooding from Buffalo Creek several times in the past. The flood in August 1961 was one of the worst floods in this basin, when “after two hours of intense downpour, Buffalo Creek overflowed its banks. Several homes and basements were flooded and travel on Highway 11 was hazardous due to excessive water. Also, there was about 2 feet of water around Rader Funeral Chapel in the major commercial area of the town”.2F3 Like other communities, the Town of Fincastle experienced extensive flooding as a result of tropical storm Agnes in 1972. Town Branch overflowed its banks and, due largely to insufficient bridge capacity at Highway 606, flooded the area between U.S. Highway 220 and Factory Street. Neither discharges nor frequencies are currently available. 3 (Roanoke Times, 1961). Page 128 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-17 The James River in Botetourt County has experienced large floods in 1877, 1913, 1936, and 1969. The remains of hurricane Camille in 1969 caused flooding that destroyed homes, roads, railroads, and bridges along the James River. River stages and discharges on the James River at Buchanan have been recorded since 1895 by the USGS. Since 1877, the bank at full stage of 15 feet has been exceeded at least 60 times. The greatest flood known to have occurred in Buchanan was in November 1877 and measured 34.9 feet at the USGS gage. Other large floods occurred in April 1886, March 1889, March 1902, March 1913, January 1935, March 1936, March 1963, and August 1969. Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972 was the second highest storm of record. Few flood related problems have occurred on Purgatory Creek in the Town of Buchanan because of lack of development in its watershed. The Town of Buchanan has a primary sewage treatment plant on the James River. The plant is subject to flooding and during the November 1985 flood was out of operation for 6 months. The historic flood of record in Buchanan occurred in November 1985 (after completion of Gathright Dam). The Town of Buchanan was devastated during the November 1985 storm which produced the Flood of Record with an exceedance of 600 years. The river caused water damage and structural damage to numerous buildings. Some buildings were completely washed away. The railroad station was washed off its foundation and the historic footbridge was washed downstream. People who expected their basements to be flooded had water up to their ceilings. The history of flooding in the Roanoke Valley has been well documented since records were kept. The flood of record was the November 1985 event. The most severe flooding on the Roanoke River is usually the result of heavy rains associated with tropical storms, while tributary stream flooding is usually the result of local thunderstorms or frontal systems. Flooding along tributaries is compounded when the streams in lower elevations back-up into feeder streams. Major floods in the area have occurred in 1940 and 1972 with discharges of 24,400 and 28,800 cfs, respectively, as measured at the USGS gage on the Roanoke River at Niagara Dam. On Tinker Creek at Dale Avenue, the August 1940 storm produced a discharge of 9,000 cfs. The flood damage from the August 1940 event was extensive and resulted in major damage to buildings, roads, bridges, and agricultural crops. The 1972 flood on the Roanoke River, which was the result of Tropical Storm Agnes, was estimated as a 50-year flood. The Roanoke River crested at 19.6 feet as measured at Walnut Avenue. Approximately 400 homes were damaged by flooding from Hurricane Agnes in the Roanoke-Salem area. On April 22, 1992, the river once again exceeded its banks and spread floodwaters in the Valley when it crested at 18.1 for the second time during the century. The flood of record occurred in November of 1985 when rains from Hurricane Juan caused the Roanoke River to rise and crest at a level of 23.4 feet from the bottom of the River, as measured from Walnut Avenue. A total of 11 inches of rain fell between Thursday October 31 and the following Monday. The last six inches fell during the last 24 hours of that five-day period. The result of that single weather event created floodwaters in downtown Roanoke that rose over five feet inside some businesses. Ten lives were lost and damage to property cost $520,000,000.3F4 This was estimated as a 130-year flood event. The 1985 spurred major work along the corridor, sparking the creation of the greenway system. 4 The Roanoke Times, November 1985. Page 129 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-18 Since 2018, 58 flood events have occurred in the region. It should be noted that quantified damages are largely self-reported and may not reflect the full damages that occurred from a given flood event. Page 130 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-19 Table 13: Flood Events per the NCEI Database, 2019-2024 Jurisdiction Date Flood Damage Event Description BOTETOURT CO. 2/23/2019 / Snow Melt - The James River at Buchanan (BNNV2) reached flood stage of 17 feet on the 24th, cresting at 17.92 feet shortly thereafter. Several roads were closed including Thrasher Road and River Road due to flooding. The peak discharge of 35300 cfs at the gage was very close to a 2.33-year according to USGS data. This is also close the bankfuli stage. BOTETOURT CO. 4/13/2020 Heavy Rain 33,000.00 Tinker Mill Road was closed due to high water and several other roads in the Buchanan area. Poor Farm Road near Fincastle was also reported to be underwater. There was some damage to roads in the county per VDOT. CRAIG CO. 4/13/2020 Heavy Rain 12,000.00 reported across the bridge. The IFLOWS stream gage at this location was out of service at the time, but the upstream IFLOWS gage on Craig Creek near Abbott (ABBV2) crested at 11.6 feet. This was over the flood stage of 10 feet and the 2nd highest (highest is 11.9 feet in Oct. 2018 with remains from Hurricane Michael) in a fairly short period of record (back to 2010). A water rescue was also preformed in the Abbott area, where a car drove into flood waters. ROANOKE CITY 4/13/2020 Heavy Rain - The Roanoke River at Roanoke crested at 11.74 feet (10,500 cfs) on the afternoon of the 13th, above the Minor flood stage of 10 feet. Several low water bridges were flooded along with the Roanoke Greenway. Jurisdiction Date Flood Damage Event Description Page 131 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-20 ROANOKE CITY 4/13/2020 Heavy Rain 25,000.00 closed. Social media photos showed flooding on Franklin Road at Wonju Street. A mudslide at a car dealership caused two cars to slide into the resulting sinkhole with some damage to the vehicles. ROANOKE CO. 4/13/2020 Heavy Rain - The Roanoke River at Glenvar (GNVV2) crested at 13.14 feet (11700 cfs) in the early afternoon of the 13th. Flood stage is 9 feet. Several roads Hollow Road bridge (Route 734) about 1 mile upstream from gage was overtopped. ROANOKE CO. 4/13/2020 Heavy Rain 5,000.00 Numerous roads were flooded and some damage reported in Roanoke County. ROANOKE CITY 5/20/2020 Heavy Rain - Wise Avenue was closed due to overflow from Tinker Creek. This is a low-water bridge that is inundated below flood stage on the creek. The gage height on the USGS Tinker Creek above Glade Creek gage was around 7 feet at the time of this report. The stream crested at 14.77 feet on the afternoon of the 21st. Jurisdiction Date Flood Damage Event Description Page 132 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-21 ROANOKE CITY 5/20/2020 Heavy Rain - Tinker Creek was reported to be flooding portions of 13th Street from Eastgate Avenue to Mason Mill Road. The gage height on the USGS Tinker Creek Upper near Columbia gage was around 9 feet at the time of this report. The stream crested twice during the event, at 12.58 feet late on the 20th and 13.49 on the afternoon of the 21st. Per USGS data, the peak discharge of 3920 cfs was slightly below a 5-year flood event (0.20 annual chance of occurrence) on upper Tinker Creek. ROANOKE CITY 5/20/2020 Heavy Rain - A spotter reported water several inches deep on Bennington Street from the Roanoke River around 850 PM EST on May 20th. The stage at the time of the report was around 13 feet on the Roanoke River gage at Walnut Street (RONV2). Several hour later the footbridge to the Carilion hospital were under varying amounts of water, up to a depth of a few feet. The reading on the Roanoke River gage was around 15.7 feet at the time of this report. The river crested at 15.89 feet at 310 PM EST on the 21st. Moderate flood stage is currently 12 feet and Major flood stage is 16 feet. This was the 8th highest stage on record at this gage, with records back to 1899. According to USGS statistics it was slightly under a 10-year event (0.1 annual chance of occurrence). Social media images also showed floodwaters from the Roanoke River covering several feet although this may have been backup along Ore Branch. Jurisdiction Date Flood Damage Event Description Page 133 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-22 BOTETOURT CO. 5/21/2020 Heavy Rain 15,000.00 The intersection of Craig Creek Road and Roaring Run Road was closed due to high water. The gage on Craig Creek at Parr (CRGV2) was around 13.3 feet at the time of the report. Minor flood stage is 12 feet. The stream crested at a stage of 16.20 feet (16200 plowed through the area. It was the 7th highest on record at the gage since 1925 and was slightly below a 10- chance of occurrence). Moderate flood stage is 15 feet and several roads were flooded. BOTETOURT CO. 5/21/2020 Heavy Rain 10,000.00 Tinker Mill Road was flooded and Tinker Creek reported out of its banks. BOTETOURT CO. 5/21/2020 Heavy Rain 13,000.00 crested at 7.87 feet (3660 cfs)|early on the 21st. This was the 8th highest stage on record at this gage with data back to 1954. Michael in October 2018 has had a higher stage (7.98 feet) in the past 15 years, dating back to September 2004. According to USGS data this was close to a 5-year recurrence interval flood (0.2 annual chance of occurrence). SALEM CITY 5/20/2020 Heavy Rain - The Mill Lane low water bridge in Salem was entirely underwater and portions of W. Riverside Drive was flooded and closed along with several other roads in Salem. The nearby Salem Pump Station IFLOWS gage (SPSV2) crested at around 9.1 feet. Minor flood stage is 7 feet. Jurisdiction Date Flood Damage Event Description Page 134 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-23 ROANOKE CO. 5/20/2020 Heavy Rain - The Roanoke River at Glenvar (GNVV2) crested at 14.14 feet (13400 cfs) in the early afternoon of the 21st. Flood stage is 9 feet. It was the 9th highest stage on record but data only extends back to 1992 at this gage. Several roads were closed near the riv Road. Bohon Hollow Road bridge (Route 734) about 1 mile upstream from gage was overtopped. According to USGS statistics it was near a 5-year flood event (0.2 annual chance of occurrence). CRAIG CO. 5/20/2020 Heavy Rain 50,000.00 around midday on May 21st. This was the 3rd highest crest in the fairly roads were flooded and partially damaged Craig County according to VDOT information. ROANOKE CITY 5/21/2020 Heavy Rain 5,000.00 in Roanoke leading to the evacuation of 13 homes due to the potential risk of a dam failure. ROANOKE CO. 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - Walnut Avenue near Glade Creek was closed due to water flowing over it. Flooding also occurred along Tinker Creek where the USGS gage near the confluence of Glade Creek crested at 16.96 feet in the afternoon of the 17th. No flood stage has been set at this station, but Tinker Creek overflows the low-water bridge on Wise Avenue at a stage of around 7 feet. BOTETOURT CO. 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - A social media post showed the road completely flooded in front of the Cloverdale Post Office. Jurisdiction Date Flood Damage Event Description Page 135 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-24 BOTETOURT CO. 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - Wildwood Mobile Home Park. Some evacuations were conducted in the area. CO. 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - likely from nearby Glade Creek. CO. 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - with water flowing over the road. CITY 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - Craig Avenue, South Royal Avenue and and South Highland Avenue. ALLEGHANY CO. 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - Up to a foot of water was observed flowing over Valley Ridge Road at the corner of Woodland Road and Magnolia Street. ALLEGHANY CO. 6/19/2020 Heavy Rain - Water over six inches in depth was seen flowing over portions of Highway 159 after 1.5 inches of rain fell in a short duration. The water was not from Dunlap Creek itself which had returned to below flood stage from the previous day. ALLEGHANY CO. 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - flood stage of 9 feet early on the 18th, cresting at 9.16 feet. Several roads very close to the creek may have been flooded. Jurisdiction Beginning Date Flood Reported Damage Event Description Page 136 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-25 CRAIG CO. 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - 11.03 feet on the afternoon of June 17th after heavy rains the previous September 28, 2004 when it reached 12.87 feet and the 6th highest since records began in 1927. The 3-day rainfall at the nearby NWS COOP site at New Castle was 4.12 inches. BOTETOURT CO. 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - feet (12500 cfs) very early on June 18th. It was the 8th highest on record at this gaging station since 1925 and was approximately a 5-year flood event (0.2 annual chance of occurrence) according to USGS studies. A road or two was likely affected. ROANOKE CITY 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - The Roanoke River at Roanoke (RONV2) crested at 11.91 feet, above the Minor flood stage of 10 feet early in the morning of June 18th. Several roads and low water bridges were flooded. SALEM CITY 6/17/2020 Heavy Rain - above Minor flood stage of 7 feet early on the 18th, cresting at 7.60 feet and closing several roads in Salem, including the Mill Lane Bridge. ROANOKE CITY 11/12/2020 Heavy Rain - 14.07 feet (14,000 cfs) at 12:35 PM EST on November 12th, the 13th highest crest on record for this gauge. This was between a 5- and 10- year Average Return Interval per the USGS StreamStats website. Jurisdiction Beginning Date Flood Reported Damage Event Description Page 137 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-26 ROANOKE CITY 5/4/2021 Heavy Rain - period. Runoff from the rainfall caused water to pond 12-18 inches deep intersection known to flood during heavy rainfall. The intersection closed by police, but was reopened after the water receded. ROANOKE CITY 5/4/2021 Heavy Rain 2,500.00 within a 45 minute period across portions of the downtown area in the City of Roanoke. Runoff from this rainfall resulted in about three feet of standing water near the intersection of Sale unknown if the occupant(s) required rescue. The road was reopened to traffic after the flood waters receded. ROANOKE CITY 8/19/2021 Heavy Rain 25,000.00 4 feet of standing water as heavy rain overwhelmed the storm sewer system. Five water rescues were performed as cars drove into the flood waters, causing the vehicles to stall. No injur Broadcast media reported that multiple cars parked along Salem Avenue experienced water intrusion into the vehicle passenger compartments and exhaust systems, with some of the vehicle needed to be towed. BOTETOURT CO. 9/22/2021 Heavy Rain 20,000.00 flow across Indian Rock Road. The bridge crossing Renick Run was being eventually reopened. BOTETOURT CO. 9/22/2021 Heavy Rain - Runoff from heavy rain caused Purgatory Creek to flood out of its banks around one foot deep across both Greyledge and Frontage Roads. The roads reopened after flooding subsided. No damage was reported. Jurisdiction Date Flood Damage Event Description Page 138 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-27 BOTETOURT CO. 9/22/2021 Heavy Rain 15,000.00 Runoff from heavy rain caused Jennings Creek to flood out of its banks and across Jennings Creek Road, both of which are located in the bottom flooding were able to abandon the vehicle to safety, however the vehicle was reportedly washed down the creek. BOTETOURT CO. 9/22/2021 Heavy Rain - Runoff from heavy rain caused Laurel Run to flood out of its banks across The road was reopened afterward. BOTETOURT CO. 9/22/2021 Heavy Rain - No damage was reported. BOTETOURT CO. 9/22/2021 Heavy Rain - the railway tunnel on 19th Street and across Highway 11 a few hundred feet further downstream. No damage was reported and the roads were passable again after the flooding receded. BOTETOURT CO. 9/22/2021 Heavy Rain - Runoff from heavy rain caused a tributary of Ellis Run to flow out of its banks, flooding across portions of Mountain Valley Road. No damage receded. Jurisdiction Beginning Date Flood Reported Damage Event Description Page 139 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-28 ROANOKE CO. 8/25/2022 Heavy Rain - (TKRV2) recorded Tinker Creek rising more than 8 feet within 2 hours to caused by 2 to more than 4 inches of rainfall from a thunderstorm near the Botetourt County border. ROANOKE CO. 8/25/2022 Heavy Rain - The stream gauge at Tinker Creek Above Glade Creek recorded Tinker Creek cresting at 7.95 feet. This was caused by 2 to more than 4 inches of rainfall from a thunderstorm near the Botetourt County border. BOTETOURT CO. 8/25/2022 Heavy Rain 15,000.00 Sanderson drive. ALLEGHANY CO. 2/17/2023 / Burn Area - (Flood stage is 10 feet). This was a little over a 2-year event (50% AEP) per USGS Streamstats. The flooding was caused by between 1.5 and 2.75 inches of rain over a 24-25 hour period. No snow melt or frozen ground was involved, but the ground was moist from widespread rainfall on the 12th and 13th a few days prior. Minor lowland flooding was the only impact observed. ROANOKE CITY 7/23/2023 Heavy Rain - impassible by several inches of flowing water caused by 3 to 4 inches of rainfall, with rates as high as 6 inches per hour. No damage was reported at the intersection, and the road was reopened to traffic after the flooding receded. MRMS FLASH CREST Unit Streamflow was estimated to be between 600 and 800 cfs per mile^2, while FLASH 1-hour ARIs indicated that rainfall amounts were as high as a 100-year event in spots around the City of Roanoke during this event. Jurisdiction Beginning Date Cause of Flood Reported Damage Event Description Page 140 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-29 ROANOKE CITY 7/23/2023 Heavy Rain - Shafer���s Crossing between 24th Street and Boulevard Street is flooded and impassible due to 2 to 3 inches of rainfall within a 90- minute period, with rainfall rates ranging from 4 to 5 inches per hour per MRMS estimates. CREST Unit Streamflow was estimated to be between 400 and 600 cfs per mile^2 for this event. No damage was reported to the road, and it was reopened to traffic after the flooding receded. ROANOKE CITY 7/23/2023 Heavy Rain - Glade Creek was observed out of its banks and flowing across Walnut Avenue at least 6 inches deep due to between 3 and locally 5 inches of rainfall within a 2-hour period falling in the basin. Rainfall rates were observed to be as high as 5 inches per hour at times. No damage was receded. ROANOKE CITY 6/17/2024 Heavy Rain - making the road impassible for a brief period of time. The road was reopened after the flooding receded, with no damage reported. ROANOKE CITY 6/17/2024 Heavy Rain - Melrose Avenue, making the intersection impassible for a brief period of time. Rainfall rates briefly reached up to 3 damage reported. Jurisdiction Beginning Date Cause of Flood Reported Damage Event Description Page 141 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-30 ROANOKE CITY 6/17/2024 Heavy Rain - standing water near near the 900 block of Van Buren Street NW, making the street impassible for a brief period of time. Rainfall rates briefly were estimated to be around 3 inches per hour. ROANOKE CITY 8/8/2024 System - Runoff from heavy rain caused the railroad underpass along Wiley Drive to become flooded with about two feet of standing water and impassible until the water drained away. No damage was reported. ROANOKE CITY 8/8/2024 System - A poor drainage issue during heavy rain caused Campbell Avenue to become flooded by several inches of standing water. The road was open to traffic after the drain blockage was cleared. ROANOKE CITY 8/8/2024 System - submerged as Tinker Creek rose to a crest of 5.85 feet, which is well within its banks. No damage to the road was reported as it is designed to begin becoming flooded at this stage. ROANOKE CITY 8/8/2024 System - Portions of Boulevard Street and 24th Street were flooded between three and four feet deep in spots by runoff from heavy rain. No damage was reported to the roads, which were reopened to traffic after the flooding receded. ROANOKE CITY 8/8/2024 System - across the intersection of Walnut Avenue and 8th Street. No damage to the roadways was reported. Jurisdiction Beginning Date Cause of Flood Reported Damage Event Description ROANOKE CITY 9/19/2024 Heavy Rain 15,000.00 Page 142 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-31 during periods of heavy rain. Multiple vehicles were stranded in standing water that rose to nearly 3 feet deep as a result of poor drainage. Six individuals had to be assisted from their vehicles in the flood waters by emergency personnel. The damage estimate is the estimated damage to the vehicles due to water intrusion. SALEM CITY 9/25/2024 Heavy Rain - around 2.5 feet deep to pool along Kessler Mill Road. No damage was reported to the road, which was open to traffic after the water receded. Page 143 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-32 Additional flood damage has been recorded from Hurricane Helene which was not included in the NCEI data. As this was a major federal disaster, impacts from this event will be quantified further in section 3.5: Hurricane and Tropical Storm. However, it is worth noting that flooding is so frequent in the region that the NCEI data may not be comprehensive in terms of the impacts of this disaster. CRS Communities: Special Considerations Three communities within the region currently have a Community Flood Rating System (CRS) designation. Roanoke County entered the CRS program in October 1991 and has a rating of 8 (10% discount). The Town of Vinton entered the CRS program in October 1, 2016 and has a class 8 rating. The City of Roanoke entered the CRS program in 1996 and maintains a class 6 rating (20% discount on flood insurance premiums for parcel owners within City limits). Several additional localities have listed this as a desired goal in their project listings, though capacity remains an inhibiting factor. Accordingly, this section specifically speaks to additive requirements for CRS planning in the region’s jurisdictions. Review of Existing Studies and Plans The following existing studies and plans speak specifically to flooding. They are summarized and recommendations are noted where appropriate. A general overview of existing plans and studies consulted to develop project recommendations and guide planning implementation work is contained in Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment. For the purposes of this section, only local government entities are listed. Alleghany County Flood Insurance Study, Alleghany County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas (2010): This study also includes the incorporated areas of the City of Covington, and Towns of Clifton Forge and Iron Gate. Emergency Operations Plan (2021): This document details emergency operations procedures, including operations in a flood event. City of Covington City of Covington Drainage Study (2025): This document, funded through the Community Flood Preparedness Fund, includes a condition assessment of the storm sewer system and a hydraulic and hydrologic model which will feed into a forthcoming Resilience Plan. Botetourt County Flood Insurance Study, Botetourt County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas (2010): This study also includes the incorporated areas of Botetourt County which include Buchanan, Fincastle, and Troutville. Botetourt County Emergency Operations Plan (2017): This document details emergency operations procedures, including operations in a flood event. Craig County Flood Insurance Study, Craig County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas (2009): This study also includes the incorporated area of the Town of New Castle. Page 144 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-33 Roanoke County Flood Insurance Study, Roanoke County, Virginia and Incorporated Areas (DATE): This study also includes the incorporated areas of the Town of Vinton, City of Roanoke, City of Salem. City of Roanoke City of Roanoke Flood Resilience Plan (2023): This plan deals specifically with flooding and flooding impacts within the City. Several of these recommendations will be incorporated into Chapter 6 and Chapter 7. NFIP Community Rating System Repetitive Loss Area Analysis (2021): This is an update of the repetitive loss analysis for the City. Emergency Operations Basic Plan (2020): This plan details emergency operations procedures within the City. Peters Creek Watershed Master Plan (2019): This plan is part of a series of master plans conducted across the City each watershed. While the primary emphasis is on water quality, there are flooding applications. Trout Run Watershed Master Plan (2017): This master plan focuses on watershed management of the Lick Run watershed through three implementation goals, which parallel those for the Trout Run Watershed Master Plan. Lick Run Watershed Master Plan (2017): This master plan focuses on watershed management of the Lick Run watershed through three implementation goals, which parallel those for the Trout Run Watershed Master Plan. Tinker Creek and Tributaries Watershed Master Plan (2016): This master plan focuses on watershed management of the Lick Run watershed through three implementation goals, which parallel those for the Trout Run Watershed Master Plan. Flooding Incident Annex (2007): This Annex to the Emergency Operations Basic Plan details specific actions to take in flood situations. Dam Safety Support Annex (2007): This Annex to the Emergency Operations Basic Plan details specific actions to take in situations where key impoundment infrastructures become a safety risk. City of Salem Resilience Plan (2023): This plan was prepared through funding from the Virginia Flood Preparedness Fund and deals directly with flooding impacts in the City of Salem. Several of these recommendations will be incorporated into Chapter 6 and Chapter 7. This section of the plan and other relevant sections were reviewed and discussed with the Floodplain Program Planner at DCR. Page 145 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-34 High Hazard Potential Dam Inventory and Planning Flooding due to dam failure is considered as part of overall flood mitigation assessment and planning within this document. Within the region there are twenty-five known high hazard potential dams per DCR. To collect data in this section, Regional Commission staff reached out to the following partners: • All signatories for the plan, including the WVWA and the local governments • Mountain Castles Soil and Water Conservation District • Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Responses from signatories to the plan regarding their dam safety activities are included in Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment. Figure 17 shows the Hazard Potential Classification for dams produced by FEMA. It is important to note that even impoundment failure that impacts a lifeline (such as a water treatment plant or key infrastructure element) does not per se result in a high hazard potential dam classification. HHPD classification is focused on the probable loss of life in an impoundment failure. DCR’s Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management administers the Virginia Dam Safety Program, under the authority of the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. Virginia’s Dam Safety Regulations4F5 were last updated in 2016. The owner of each regulated high, significant, or low hazard potential dam is required to apply to the board for an Operation and Maintenance Certificate. The application must include an assessment of the dam by a licensed professional, an Emergency Action Plan and the appropriate fee(s), submitted separately. An executed copy of the Emergency Action Plan or Emergency Preparedness Plan must be filed with the appropriate local emergency official and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. Figure 18: Dam Classifications, FEMA5F6 The City of Roanoke maintains a Dam Safety Support Annex to their Emergency Operations Plan. The Western Virginia Water Authority also maintains required Emergency Action Plans specific to operation of the dams owned by the Authority, one of which is Spring Hollow Lake Dam listed in Table 2. Inundation maps for Spring Hollow Lake Dam are included in Appendix H. 5 (Commonwealth of Virginia, 2016) 6 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2004) Page 146 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-35 The VSWCB issues Regular Operation and Maintenance Certificates to a dam owner for a period of six years. If a dam has a deficiency but does not pose imminent danger, the board may issue a Conditional Operation and Maintenance Certificate, during which time the dam owner is to correct the deficiency. After a dam is certified by the board, annual inspections are required either by a professional engineer or the dam owner, and the Annual Inspection Report is submitted to the regional dam safety engineer. There are no comprehensive databases of historical dam failures or flooding following a dam failure in Virginia. Dam failure can be caused by a variety of scenarios. Thirty-four percent of all dam failures are caused by overtopping, when water spills over the top of a dam. The majority of dam failure incidents are driven by flooding due to excessive precipitation. Proper maintenance of a dam structure is key to mitigating the impacts of flooding. DCR administers the Virginia Dam Safety, Flood Prevention, and Protection Assistance Fund. Other funding sources also exist for dam failure mitigation. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials maintains a voluntary database of dam safety incidents, the ASDSO Dam Incident Database. Only one safety incident is recorded in this database in the region, which references overtopping of Spring Valley Lake dam. However, consultation with DCR clarifies the incident. Spring Valley Lake saw their emergency spillway activated, and a Stage 3 emergency was declared in accordance with their Emergency Action Plan in May 2020. There was no overtopping, and the dam was not in immediate danger of failure. In the 2019 Plan, several Dam Safety Incidents and remediation efforts were documented. These have been updated with more accurate information from DCR. Rainbow Forest Lake Dam: In May 2011, DCR order the Rainbow Forest Recreation Association (RFRA) in Botetourt County to reduce the pool level of Rainbow Forest Lake in order to provide extra storage capacity behind the dam until the spillway could be improved. The RFRA has been working with the state to address concerns about the structure since 1997. Gathright Dam: In May 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) inspected the Gathright Dam as part of Screening Portfolio Risk Analysis and routine inspections. Later in the year on September 2, the USACE assigned the dam a Safety Action Classification (DSAC) II which is defined as "Urgent (Unsafe or Potentially Unsafe)". The rating is attributed to concerns about possible increased seepage at the toe of the dam, and an undetermined flow rate at the river spring a quarter mile downstream, and potential flow channels through limestone below the spillway during pool events above 1,600 feet. Because of this rating, the USACE has implemented risk reduction measures which include increased monitoring, updating emergency operation plans and reducing the water level in the reservoir. As of early 2010, the USACE has reduced and continues to maintain the reservoir at an elevation of 1,562 ft above sea level compared to the normal level of 1,582 feet. Throughout 2010, the USACE conducted safety exercises with local/state officials, conduct a series of investigations on the dam, update inundation mapping and reevaluate the DSAC status. In November 2010, Lake Moomaw was restored to a level of 1,582 ft. and the DSAC will be reevaluated in the future. Clifton Forge Dam: Clifton Forge Dam impounds a 12.5 square mile drainage area of Smith Creek with an 11.5-acre normal pool. The dam is classified as a High Hazard Dam by DCR and operates under a conditional 2-year, renewable, Operation and Maintenance Page 147 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-36 Certificate. It has been issued an alteration permit by DCR that will be used during upgrades in 2018-19. A Dam Breach Inundation Zone Analysis was done in 2013 that showed a failure would impact 650 residential units, 1,400 people and downtown commercial, retail, public administration and infrastructure. An Emergency Action Plan was completed in 2014 and a preliminary engineering report for proposed improvements was done in 2016. Major improvements proposed include raising crest of non-overflow sections; raise concrete core wall and surrounding earthfill; seal a leaking concrete joint; remove spillway piers to expand spillway capacity; anchor the principal spillway; replace spillway bridge; and repair the deteriorated concrete face. The estimated cost for this work was approximately $4.3 million. The town worked with its consulting engineers to develop a funding package from USDA Rural Development in cooperation with Alleghany County. The proposed schedule anticipates construction to be complete by December 2019. Johns Creek Watershed Dam #1 (McDaniel’s Lake): Craig County Board of Supervisors and Mountain Castles Soil and Water Conservation District own and operate the Johns Creek watershed Dam #1. Four floodwater-retarding structures were built in the Johns Creek Watershed between 1966 and 1967. The dam has a drainage area of 12,241 acres and a normal pool surface area of 28 acres. It was designed to store runoff of 50-year storm. The dam was originally designed as “Significant” hazard and later reclassified to “High” hazard due to downstream development that was allowed to occur. The dam operates under a conditional Operation and Maintenance Certificate from DCR that expired in September 2018. A breach inundation study for the dam was done in 2009 which concluded the dam is a High Hazard Potential dam. The study found 68 occupied structures and 16 bridges within the inundation zone below the dam. An additional study by URS Group completed in 2010 found the population at risk to be 150 people. Mountain Castles SWCD has been working jointly with Virginia's DCR and federal partners to facilitate a design to rehabilitate Johns Creek Dam #1 to increase spillway capacity for future flooding. So far, the rehabilitation team has accomplished a wetland delineation survey, riser condition survey, and a geotechnical investigation survey. A complete design is expected by spring of 2026 that involves extending the embankment through the existing auxiliary spillway, installing a new roller-compacted spillway, and installing a new concrete riser to meet the new requirements. Niagara Dam: Niagara Dam is one of two federally regulated dams in the region. The dam was recently relicensed by the FERC in 2025. On November 4, 1985, high flows recorded at 52,300 cfs resulted in the breach of the right abutment to the dam. Repairs to the right abutment resulted in the Niagara Hydroelectric Project being taken out of service from November 4, 1985 through March 17, 1986. The average flow of the river at this location is 573 cfs. The same event affected Smith Mountain Lake dam downstream, a key infrastructure asset for the region and also federally regulated. The reservoir elevation increased from its normal operating limit of 795 NGVD to 799.5 NGVD. That elevation is 0.5 ft. below the emergency level of 800.0 NGVD allowed under the license for this structure. Three additional dams of interest may be high hazard dams but have not yet been classified as such. These dams are listed in DSIS as High-Preliminary, which means that there has been a Page 148 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-37 preliminary study that raised concerns, but an inundation study has not been submitted by the dam owner to properly establish the hazard classification yet. • Orchard Lake Dam – 023002 • Wilburn Dam – 023010 • Stokes Dam – 023013 This section of the plan was reviewed by the Regional Dam Safety Engineer at DCR. Dam safety data sheets were also provided for all High Hazard Potential Dams and are included in Appendix H. The Role of the State While local governments play a role in reviewing dam safety activities for those dams within their jurisdictions, the Commonwealth of Virginia requires that DCR play an active role in dam regulation working directly with the dam owner. The following powers are within the province of DCR: • Activities and studies that determine risks associated with eligible dams • Environmental studies for NEPA compliance • Development of operation and maintenance plans • Dam risk and consequence assessments Feasibility studies • Preliminary engineering studies Alternatives analysis • Mapping, engineering survey, and inundation modeling • Coordination of EAP and EOPs for different release conditions • Engineering design • Development of specifications DCR coordinates these activities directly with the dam owner, and the local government is generally informed of many of these plans and elements after the fact unless they also fill the role of dam owner. While the local government may coordinate on safety elements such as public communication or evacuation plans, most of the mitigation actions possible for high hazard potential dams are the responsibility of the dam owner or the state. Page 149 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-38 Table 14: High Hazard Potential Dams Federal ID Dam Name Dam Name Dam Type Owner Name Location VA00500 3 Dam Gravity Forge Alleghany VA00500 4 Landfill No. 2 Dam Lagoon Earth Westvaco/WestRoc k Alleghany VA00500 9 Virginia Pulp Dam B Earth Westvaco/West Rock Alleghany 1 Dam Moomaw Rockfill District Alleghany VA00501 3 Embankmen t Dam Earth Westvaco/WestRoc k Alleghany/Covingto n VA02300 4 Estates Dam Emerald Lake Earth Homeowners Association Botetourt VA02300 5 Botetourt Country Club Dam Earth Club Botetourt VA02301 0 Wilburn Dam Earth and Anne P. Wilburn Botetourt 3 Stokes Dam Earth Sandra J Stokes Botetourt 2 Lake Dam Earth Dearl & Julie Fraze Botetourt VA02300 3 Rainbow Forest Dam Earth Inc Botetourt 1 Dam Masonry Water Authority Botetourt/Roanoke Page 150 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-39 Federal ID Dam Name Dam Name Dam Type Owner Name Location VA04500 1 Johns Creek Dam #2 Earth Conservation District Craig VA04500 2 Johns Creek Dam #1 McDaniel s Lake Earth Conservation District Craig VA04500 3 Johns Creek Dam #3 Earth Conservation District Craig VA04500 4 Johns Creek Dam #4 Dicks Creek Lake Earth Conservation District Craig VA01901 0 Creek Reservoir Dam Earth Water Authority Roanoke County 1 Gravity Company Roanoke County 2 Lake Dam Gravity Company LLC Roanoke County VA16100 4 Craig Memorial Dam Hollow Reservoir Dam Concret e Water Authority Roanoke County VA16100 5 Dam Valley High School Dam Earth Roanoke County Roanoke County VA16100 8 Darr Dam Hudick Dam Earth Richard C. & Norma Lee Darr Roanoke County Page 151 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-40 Federal ID Dam Name Dam Name Dam Type Owner Name Location VA16101 3 Roanoke College Dam Earth Roanoke College Salem VA77000 2 Spring Dam Earth Lake, LLC City of Roanoke VA77000 1 Windsor Lake Dam Earth Corporation City of Roanoke Page 152 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-41 3.5 Hurricane and Tropical Storm Definition of Hazard Hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions occasionally strike the region, causing multiple impacts, most often flooding and wind damage. While damages from these events are referred to in other sections of this document, this section looks at past storm events more holistically. The National Weather Service offers the following definitions of these storm events: • Tropical Depression: Tropical cyclone with maximum sustained surface winds of 38 mph; • Tropical Storm: Maximum sustained surface winds of 39-74 mph; • Hurricane: Maximum sustained surface winds of 74+ mph. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale rates hurricane’s sustained wind speed from 1 to 5. Wind is a major factor in hurricane and tropical storm damage. By the time that these storms reach the region, they are generally downgraded to a tropical storm or tropical depression. Rarely do hurricane force storm winds make it as far inland as southwestern Virginia. Table 15: Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, National Weather Service While this hazard is discussed individually in this chapter, it is important to note that the primary impacts of hurricane and tropical storm in the region are due to wind damage and riverine flooding caused by excess precipitation. In Chapter 4, this hazard is assessed as part of section 4.4 Flooding and section 4.8 Wind Event. Historic Event Descriptions Virginia has been struck by 48 hurricanes from 1900 to 2018 according to records from the National Hurricane Center. The Roanoke Valley – Alleghany region has not experienced a direct hurricane in over 100 years. The region is impacted by the remnants of the hurricanes as tropical depressions and subtropical storms bringing heavy rains and winds. The following major events have occurred in the region. August 20, 1969, Hurricane Camille: Camille made landfall as a Category 5 hurricane smashing the Mississippi Coast with 200 mph winds on August 17. Camille was the strongest hurricane to Page 153 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-42 make landfall on the U.S. this century. The hurricane maintained force for 10 hours as it moved 150 miles inland. The storm tracked northward weakening and becoming less defined. It moved toward Virginia on the 19th and was only a tropical depression. Moisture from the warm Gulf Stream waters moved northwest toward the storm and new feeder bands formed. These thunderstorms "trained" (one followed the other), into the Blue Ridge south of Charlottesville. In just 12 hours, up to 31 inches of rain fell with devastating results (153 killed, most in Nelson County). Major flooding followed as the bulge of water moved down the James River into Richmond. Waynesboro on the South River saw eight feet of water in its downtown and Buena Vista had five and one-half feet in its business section. Damage was estimated at 113 million dollars (1969 dollars). The remains of this storm caused flooding that destroyed homes, roads, railroads, and bridges along the James River in Botetourt County. June 21, 1972, Hurricane Agnes. Agnes originated in the Gulf of Mexico and was downgraded to a tropical storm by the time it reached Virginia, yet still caused 13 deaths in the Commonwealth. The storm impacted the entire region. Tropical Storm Agnes was a severe event and resulted in as much as one-third of the City of Covington under water where one church, three public buildings, two industrial plants, 8 commercial buildings, and 490 private residences were damaged. During the event, Glen Wilton was isolated due to floodwaters covering the only road access to the community. The storm impacted communities along the James and Roanoke Rivers. Tropical Storm Agnes was the second highest storm of record along the James River in Buchanan. The storm caused a 50-year flood. The Roanoke Valley was hit with the effects of Agnes, causing the Roanoke River to crest at 19.6 feet and approximately 400 homes were damaged by flooding in the Roanoke-Salem area. Sept. 28, 2004, Hurricane Jeanne. The remnants of Hurricane Jeanne, in the form of a tropical depression, moved through the vicinities of Greenville, SC, Roanoke, VA and Washington, DC and finally to the New Jersey coast on Tuesday, Sept. 28. Maximum sustained wind speeds ranged from 25 mph to 30 mph near the storm's center. The primary impact on the Commonwealth was flooding, although one F1 tornado touched down in Pittsylvania County. The heaviest rainfall occurred from the New River Valley to the Southern Shenandoah Valley. Rainfall in this region ranged from 3 inches to 7 inches, with the highest amounts falling in Patrick, eastern Floyd, eastern Montgomery, Giles, Roanoke, Botetourt and Rockbridge counties. September 14-16, 2018, Hurricane Florence. Hurricane Florence made landfall along the North Carolina coast on September 14, and after slowly tracking westward through South Carolina, the remnants of Florence did not reach western Virginia until September 16, accelerating again by that time. The track of the remnant circulation through the southern Appalachians resulted in heavy rain and flooding, and at least one landslide, over a large part of the NWS Blacksburg forecast area, with especially heavy rain along portions of the Blue Ridge due to enhanced upslope easterly flow. In addition to the heavy rain and flooding, gusty winds (although below tropical storm force) combined with saturated ground to cause numerous uprooted trees and some scattered power outages. Rainfall amounts across the area varied form less than 1 inch in Eagle Rock, 2.6 inches at the Roanoke Regional Airport to 5.6 inches on Bent Mountain. Winds were from 38 mph at the Roanoke Regional Airport to 13 mph at Springwood in Botetourt County. The Roanoke River crested at 11.14 feet (0.5 feet above flood stage) and the James River in Buchanan crested at 14.7 feet (2.3 feet below flood stage). October 10-11, 2018, Hurricane Michael. Hurricane Michael made landfall along the Florida panhandle as Category 4 hurricane on October 10, 2018, then tracked northeastward with the Page 154 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-43 northern portion of the storm circulation tracking across portions of Southside Virginia, Thursday afternoon, the 11th. As the storm circulation approached on October 11th a cold front moving in from the west and interacted with the storm and enhanced rainfall especially east of Interstate 81. Widespread rainfall amounts of 4 to 8 inches were reported, along with local amounts over 10 inches, mainly from the mountains of North Carolina up through Southside Virginia. This resulted in significant flash flooding with flash flood emergencies issued for the city of Roanoke, as well as Roanoke County. Rainfall amounts ranged from 1.97 inches at Gathright Dam, 3.3 inches at Daleville, 3.15 at the Roanoke Regional Airport to 7.16 inches in the Cave Spring area of Roanoke County. The Roanoke River at Glenvar crested at 17.1 feet (8.1 feet above flood stage) and in Roanoke at 16.4 feet (6.4 feet above flood stage). September 27, 2024, Hurricane Helene: Helene made landfall in Florida as a powerful Category 4 hurricane late Thursday, September 26, and moved quickly northward into the southeastern states, and then turned slightly northwestward towards the southern Appalachian Mountains overnight into Friday morning, weakening as it moved over land. Helene’s intensity and fast forward motion led to impacts being felt well inland, from the Florida Big Bend area into the Appalachians only 12 hours after landfall, and there was extensive damage in southwest Virginia. Widespread cellular service and power outages, some lasting for several days, occurred as high winds downed thousands of trees across the region. Winds gusted as high as 55 mph to 65 mph in southwest Virginia. There were three confirmed tornadoes associated with the remnants of Hurricane Helene in the Piedmont region of Virginia. Flooding impacts from Hurricane Helene were extensive across the area and were exacerbated by a predecessor rainfall event that occurred a day before Helene reached the region, which brought six to eight inches of rain to the mountains prior to the arrival of the remnants of Helene. The three-day rainfall totals associated with the remnants of Hurricane Helene were highest in Grayson and Smyth Counties, where observations of 10 to locally 15 inches of rain were recorded. The Piedmont of Virginia received much less rain, between one and two inches, with a couple areas around three inches. Total economic losses for Virginia, which include Virginia’s agriculture, forestry, and other industries, are expected to range between $416 million and $630 million per an economic analysis released by Virginia Tech researchers. Within the planning region, at least 20,000 people lost power due to downed trees in Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, and Roanoke Counties. One woman was killed when struck by a flying chicken coop. Others, including a postal worker and a police officer, were injured by downed trees and flying debris. Total losses from agriculture damages in Craig County were estimated at $85,000. In Troutville, twenty-one acres of sunflowers at Beaver Dam Farm were flattened by strong winds. Page 155 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-44 3.6 Geologic Hazards Definition of Hazard Karst is defined as a landscape with sinkholes, springs, and streams that sink into subsurface caverns. In karst areas, the fractured limestone rock formations have been dissolved by flowing groundwater to form cavities, pipes, and conduits. Sinkholes, caves, sinking streams, and springs signal the presence of underground drainage systems in karst areas. Sinkholes are natural depressions on the land surface that are shaped like a bowl or cone. They are common in regions of karst, where mildly acidic groundwater has dissolved rock such as limestone, dolostone, marble, or gypsum. Sinkholes are subsidence or collapse features that form at points of local instability. Their presence indicates that additional sinkholes may develop in the future. The probability for karst hazards cannot be determined as easily as other hazards due to lack of accurate mapping and historical data. The most notable karst related event in the region was a sinkhole in Botetourt County that occurred on Route 670 in 2005. That hole eventually expanded to 50 feet deep and 75 feet wide. Several smaller sinkholes have damaged Interstate 81 to the north in Augusta, Rockbridge and Shenandoah counties and south in Washington County in the past along with damage to Route 460 in Bedford County to the east. To date, there have been no federal disaster declarations or NCEI recorded events for karst related sinkhole events. Currently, there is no comprehensive long-term record of past events in Virginia. Figure 19: Karst Map, VDEQ Page 156 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-45 The term landslide describes many types of downhill earth movements, ranging from rapidly moving catastrophic rock avalanches and debris flows in mountainous regions to more slowly moving earth slides and other ground failures. Though most landslide losses in the United States accrue from many widely distributed events, landslides can be triggered by severe storms and earthquakes, causing spectacular damage in a short time over a wide area. Some landslides move slowly and cause gradual damage, whereas others move so rapidly that they can destroy property and take lives. Debris flows are a common type of fast-moving landslide that generally occurs during intense rainfall on saturated soil. Their consistency ranges from watery mud to thick, rocky mud (like wet cement) which is dense enough to carry boulders, trees, and cars. Debris flows from many different sources can combine in channels, where their destructive power may be greatly increased.6F7 Landslides can be triggered by both natural changes in the environment and human activities. Inherent weaknesses in the rock or soil often combine with one or more triggering events, such as heavy rain, snowmelt, and changes in groundwater level, or seismic activity. Erosion may remove the toe and lateral slope support, triggering potential landslides. Human activities triggering landslides are usually associated with construction and changes in slope and surface water and groundwater levels. Changes in irrigation, runoff and drainage can increase erosion and change groundwater levels and ground saturation. Historic Event Descriptions Historical records tell us that destructive landslides and debris flows in the Appalachian Mountains occur when unusually heavy rain from hurricanes and intense storms soaks the ground, reducing the ability of steep slopes to resist the downslope pull of gravity. For example, during Hurricane Camille in 1969, such conditions generated debris flows in Nelson County, Virginia. The storm caused 150 deaths, mostly attributed to debris flows, and more than $100 million in property damage. Likewise, 72 hours of storms in Virginia and West Virginia during early November 1985 caused debris flows and flooding in the Potomac and Cheat River basins that were responsible for 70 deaths and $1.3 billion in damage to homes, businesses, roads, and farmlands. Most localities of the RVARC region have experienced small, localized landslide events, especially areas in the valleys. The mountain slopes are characterized by the USGS as having a high susceptibility but a low incidence, indicating that few events have occurred on the higher slopes. Chapter 2: Regional Profile contains a topographic map of the region. The only documented concentration of landslides in the planning region has been along Smith Creek in the Town of Clifton Forge. A State Emergency Declaration was issued in November of 1987 for the area. Heavy rain caused landslides along Smith Creek in Clifton Forge, the third occurrence in the past decade. The area is landslide prone and structures are at risk from further landslides. A study is warranted to determine scope of the problem and a method to stabilize the area. In 2008 a rockslide occurred on Route 220 just north of the City of Covington. No property damage estimates were reported. In 2019, another event on Route 220 closed a section of the road north of Covington for a two-week period. Small landslides just outside of Eagle Rock have closed 7 Debris Flow Hazards in the Blue Ridge of Virginia, USGS Fact Sheet 159-96P. L. Gori and W. C. Burton, 1996. Page 157 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-46 Route 43 multiple times. Landslides on Route 220 south in the Bent Mountain area of Roanoke County have resulted in closures of that road multiple times. In 2021 a debris flow event triggered by heavy rain was reported in the City of Roanoke with $25,000 in damages. A car wash sustained severe structural damage when the hillside immediately behind the building gave way and smashed through the rear wall of the building. No deaths or injuries were reported. Page 158 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-47 3.7 Wildfire Definition of Hazard Wildfire is a particularly pernicious natural disaster that can have wide effects across the region, affecting air quality, property, and safety. A significant portion of the region is forested and managed by public entities, including the National Park Service, National Forest Service, Virginia Department of Forestry, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources. Several factors affect wildfires, including meteorological factors such as temperature and wind, and non-meteorological factors such as soil moisture, topography, debris accumulation of dead or dying vegetation, and forest density and age. Wildfires across the state are primarily caused by debris burning. Fire laws proscribe burning until after 4pm from February 15th to April 30th, the major fire season across the Commonwealth. Other causes include powerlines, lightning, campfires, and arson. The Virginia Department of Forestry is the primary agency involved in wildfire education and response in Virginia; however, other entities which may engage in wildfire response include local EMS and federal entities. Data in this section comes from the VDOF unless otherwise noted. Historic Event Descriptions Historically, three major fire events have occurred in the region. In 1999, Fort Lewis Mountain in the western part of Roanoke County burned out of control for a week, endangering multiple homes before it was brought under control. In April 2012, a series of wildfires burned more than 38,000 acres in western Virginia. One of the largest fires impacting the region was in a remote area in Alleghany County 10 miles west of Covington. The U.S. Forest Service reported the Alleghany Tunnel Fire burned 11,381 acres and resulted in temporary closure of sections of routes 770 and 850. The largest fire originated in Rich Hole Wilderness area of Alleghany County. This fire spread to private lands, grew to 15,454 acres, and closed parts of Interstate 64 in both directions. 7,351 acres burned in the Barbers Creek Fire in Alleghany and Craig counties. All fires posed threats to structures on private lands. Fires also occurred in Page and Shenandoah counties. On the first weekend of March 2018, VDOF responded to 127 wildfires spread by high winds. Across the Commonwealth. These fires burned a total of 690 acres and impacted Botetourt County and multiple other localities across the state. A month later in Roanoke County, several fires ignited along the shoulder of Virginia Highway 311 on Catawba Mountain, near the highway’s intersection with the Appalachian Trail. The fires grew quickly in dry and windy conditions. Several of these fires merged into one fire which grew to 165 acres and threatened the safety of dozens of hikers who were on the trail to McAfee Knob. Since 2018, approximately 74 fires have occurred in the region, with 38 occurring in Alleghany County, 18 occurring in Botetourt County, five occurring in Craig County, and 13 occurring in Roanoke County. Of these the largest occurred in October of 2023, when 97 acres burned near Penny Hollow and Cumberland Gap Road in Craig County. The threshold for a major fire is 100 acres. A full incident list is contained in Appendix E: Regional Wildfire Report. Page 159 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-48 3.8 Wind Event Definition of Hazard For the purposes of this plan, wind events shall refer to straight line wind events such as derecho or thunderstorm winds as well as other wind events such as tornadoes. Straight line wind is a term used to define any thunderstorm wind that is not associated with rotation and is used mainly to differentiate from tornadic winds. Most straight-line winds are a result of outflow generated by a thunderstorm downdraft. High winds are also associated with hurricanes, with two significant effects: widespread debris due to damaged and downed trees and building debris; and power outages. Half of all severe weather reports in the lower 48 states are due to damaging winds. Since most thunderstorms produce some straight-line winds as a result of outflow generated by the thunderstorm downdraft, anyone living in thunderstorm-prone areas is at risk for experiencing straight line winds. The majority of the wind events experienced in the region are considered straight line wind events, with the vast majority of these driven by thunderstorms. Straight line wind events can occur anywhere in the planning region and have the potential to impact all types of buildings, power and telecommunication transmission lines, and transportation services. Figure 20: EF Ratings Definitions, Weather.gov Page 160 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-49 A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. It is spawned by a thunderstorm (or as a result of a hurricane) and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage from a tornado is a result of the high wind velocity and wind-blown debris. Tornado season is generally April through September, although tornadoes can occur at any time of year. In February 2007, the National Weather Service adopted the Enhanced Fujita scale to measure tornadoes. The EF scale replaces the original Fujita scale that led to inconsistent tornado ratings due to a lack of damage indicators, no account of construction quality and variability, and no definitive correlation between damage and wind speed. For example, a weak structure combined with a slow-moving storm could lead to a tornado’s rating being higher than it should be. The EF scale accounts for these and other variables for a more accurate measurement. Low-intensity tornadoes appear to occur most frequently in Virginia. Tornadoes rated EF2 or higher are very rare, although EF2, EF3, and a few EF4 storms have occurred. Historic Event Descriptions In total, 242 wind events have occurred in the region since the last update of the plan (see Table 3-1). More events were reported in Roanoke County than in any other jurisdiction. Almost all of these events resulted in some level of damages, with a total reported cost across all events of $2,223,850. Crop damage alone was reported at $140,000, though this number is likely underreported. The average cost per wind event was $10,640. Sixteen events with damages estimated at greater than $20,000 occurred in the region in this time period. The largest scale event in the region was the derecho on June 29, 2012 that arrived with 80 mph winds and left over a million people without power and caused extensive wind damage throughout Virginia. The event was caused by a series of days with high temperatures in excess of 100 degrees created by a heat dome over the central and eastern US followed by a line of strong thunderstorms that moved quickly from the Chicago area to the east on the afternoon of June 29th. Emergency services personnel dealt with fires caused by downed powerlines, collapsed roofs, and wrecked vehicles. Many businesses in the area remained closed for an extended time and lost revenue due to the power outages while hardware stores experienced a run on generators and propane fueled grills. It took more than two weeks for utility companies to restore power to all residents in the region. Recovery, including the clean-up of hundreds of downed trees, roofs and building repairs lasted throughout July and August. A federal disaster declaration was made for this event. Significant straight line wind events have occurred since 2019. In February 2019, a strong cold front passed over western and southwestern Virginia. In its wake, high winds intensified in the overnight hours particularly along and west of the Blue Ridge. Impacts were amplified by waterlogged soil, allowing trees to be uprooted or displaced more easily. At the peak of the event, approximately 40,000 homes in Virginia were without power. Thunderstorms struck in May of 2019 during the afternoon and evening hours. The storms produced hail up to the size of half dollar coins and produced damaging winds that blew down numerous trees and power lines. At least 4,000 people lost power due to trees falling on to power lines, and a few structures also suffered damage. In June of the same year, multiple thunderstorms developed, some of which intensified to severe levels and produced damaging winds that knocked down numerous trees. Numerous trees and tree limbs, as well as power lines, Page 161 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-50 were blown down by straight line thunderstorm winds in eastern Roanoke and around the community of Vinton. Siding panels from the Roanoke Times Newspaper office were blown down onto the street. One tree fell onto a parked car on Underhill Avenue. Damage was most concentrated along Shelbourne Avenue in Vinton; however, damage was observed from Hardy Road to the Roanoke River, about a 3/4-mile-wide swath. Winds picked up a metal shed on Shelbourne Avenue and blew it into a telephone pole. The damage resulted in a loss of commercial power to about 2,000 customers in eastern Roanoke County. On Halloween of 2019, a cold front brought strong winds both ahead and behind the frontal passage during the afternoon and evening hours. These winds were not associated with any thunderstorms, but they blew down trees and power lines in southwest Virginia, particularly impacting Botetourt and Alleghany County. In July of 2020, thunderstorm winds brought two trees down on Catawba Valley Road in Roanoke County. One of the trees fell onto a home in the 3700 block. Damage values are estimated at $50,000. A large thunderstorm complex moved east from the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys across southwest Virginia in May of 2021. The system caused dozens of trees to be toppled across the region particularly in Botetourt County. Heavy rainfall from these storms also caused localized flooding in the City of Roanoke, where rainfall rates were in excess of 4 inches per hour at one point, between a 5-year and 10-year rainfall event per NOAA Atlas 14 Point Frequency Estimates, showing that weather events are complex and often create multiple hazards. In June of 2022, numerous trees and power lines were downed by thunderstorm winds in Botetourt County. Near Iron Gate, one tree fell onto a garage and damaged a vehicle. April of 2023 saw a $60,000 estimated damage event when wind gusts resulted in many trees and power lines down in the Cities of Salem and Roanoke and portions of Roanoke County. This resulted in an estimated one to two thousand customers without power. Among the fallen trees, one fell and destroyed a raptor enclosure at the Southwest Virginia Wildlife Center which cost around $25,000 to replace. Additionally a power pole and a telephone pole were split in two. In May of 2024, thunderstorm cells produced a tornado (discussed later in this section). In September of 2024, Hurricane Helene caused widespread impacts across the region, with over 3,200 customers reported without power at the peak of the high winds. A peak wind speed of 68 mph was measured. There was one confirmed fatality. A woman was killed when struck by a chicken coop that was lofted by the high winds. A deputy was also injured at the scene. Total losses from agriculture damages were around $85,000, including losses from crops and structures. Page 162 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-51 Figure 21: Tornado Paths, NOAA Several tornadoes have touched down in the planning region. On April 24, 1896, around 4:30 pm, a tornado moved northeast from Salem into Roanoke destroying a bowling alley and several other buildings. A framed home near the bowling alley was leveled, killing three of the eight-member family in the house. The five others were injured. In Bath and Alleghany counties, the Cowpasture Valley is at an elevation of 1,500 feet and lies between two ridges that rise 1,000 feet above the valley. On May 2, 1929, a tornado struck around 6 pm. Property losses in the communities of Coronation and Sitlington were great. At least 10 people were injured, but none were killed. There were five tornadoes reported on that day. More may have struck remote areas. Twenty-two people were killed and over 150 injured with at least half a million dollars in damage in Alleghany and Bath counties. April 3-4, 1974 is known as the "Super Outbreak" with 148 tornadoes, 315 people killed and 5,484 injured across the United States. It was the most tornadoes ever in recorded in a 24-hour period and it was the worst tornado outbreak since February 19, 1884. In Virginia, eight tornadoes hit. One person was killed and 15 injured, all in mobile homes. Over 200 homes and barns and over 40 mobile homes and trailers were damaged or destroyed. The Saltville area and Roanoke were the hardest hit. An F3 tornado touched down on the west edge of Roanoke, near Salem around 5 a.m., and moved through the north part of Roanoke to Bonsack and into Botetourt County to the Blue Ridge area. The path was initially a mile wide, but it continued to narrow to 75 yards across near the end of its track of damage. It hit four schools (two lost portions of their roof and two had windows broken out) and two apartment complexes, Grandview Village Apartments (18 buildings damaged) and Ferncliff Apartments (lost roof). The Red Cross reported 120 homes damaged or destroyed in the Roanoke area. Trees were down on buildings and cars. Carports, garages, and porches were flattened. Roofs were partly blown off several houses in Botetourt. A small tornado struck northern Roanoke County on August 5, 2003. The storm had winds of 110- 113 miles per hour and caused damage to ITT Industries and Sunnybrook Garage on Plantation Road in addition to damaging roofs, fences and a car in the area. No injuries were reported as a result of the tornado. A small tornado touched down in the City of Roanoke on June 4, 2008. The tornado was rated EF-0 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale of tornado intensity. The National Weather Service reported that the storm knocked down power lines and trees, including on houses along a 1.4-mile path. Appalachian Power stated that the storm knocked out power to 4,000 customers. Page 163 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-52 A tornado touched down just east of the Town of New Castle on April 15, 2018. Classified as an EF-1, estimated windspeeds reached 105 mph and had a path length of 0.5 miles. The tornado damaged 6 homes, several outbuildings and garages, and approximately 50 trees in the vicinity. Three cars and a double axel trailer were moved including one truck that was flipped over. The tornado was part of a wide regional outbreak made up of several supercells on April 15th impacting communities in Virginia and North Carolina. On August 1, 2020 an isolated storm produced an EF0 tornado, resulting in a discontinuous path of damage with uprooted trees and small trees snapped aloft, with damages estimated at $3,500. An EF-1 tornado touched down near the intersection of Karen Drive and Joan Circle, on May 26, 2024. Several tree trunks were snapped. Additional trees were snapped and uprooted as the tornado moved east-northeast, with loss of roofing material noted at several homes and apartment buildings just south of the Roanoke River. The tornado lifted just east of Electric Road near the intersection of Midland and Easton Roads. The estimated peak wind speeds were 100 to 105 mph. Damage was estimated to be 1.17 million dollars. The same storm cells spawned straight line winds which resulted in an estimated $22,000 worth of damages. Page 164 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-53 3.9 Winter Storm Definition of Hazard Winter storms are events which create snow, freezing rain, or sleet. This frozen precipitation can accumulate on powerlines, trees, roofs and roads and cause damage or fatalities through car wrecks, loss of electricity, and, in extreme cases, damage to buildings. The planning region experiences a handful of winter storm events each year. Winter storms are commonly assessed with the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS). Some Category 1 or 2 storms are recorded in the NESIS database which have a southern extent within the planning region over the past five years. However, the core of these storms was not localized in the planning region. Figure 22: NESIS Scale Historic Event Descriptions While typical snow and ice events result in low accumulations, several larger winter storms have been documented in the region. February of 1960 found the area blanketed with 27.6 inches and March delivered 30.3 inches that same year. The March storm registered as a Category 4 storm across the northeast. In January of 1966, the area received a total of 41.2 inches of snow in a Category 3 storm. The second greatest official snow accumulation in a single 24-hour period occurred on February 11th and 12th of 1983 when 18.6 inches covered the region in another Category 3 storm. The storm resulted in snowdrifts of up to three feet in height. This was the third heaviest snowfall in over 100 years. The "Storm of the Century" hit the valley in March 1993, the first Category 5 since the NESIS scale became commonly used to directly impact the region. With blizzard-like conditions and nearly 30 inches of snow, this was the biggest winter storm in 10 years. Localities in the region received a Presidential Declaration of Emergency and the National Guard was mobilized to help with emergency transportation needs. Shelters were open for those without electricity. A devastating storm struck the region and surrounding jurisdictions in February 1994, with one to three inches of solid ice from freezing rain and sleet. Roads were blocked, electric and phone lines were damaged, and a large portion of the valley was without electricity. The “Blizzard of ’96,” also a Category 5, dropped 22.2 inches officially in 24 hours in early January of 1996 and remains the current record 24-hour snowfall. Many areas of the region received more than 36 inches during the same period. Page 165 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-54 In March 2009 snowfall reports in the region ranged from 6 to 9 inches and were the largest snow event since 2005. The Winter of 2009-2010 brought three major winter storms to the area. On December 18th, with areas of Craig and Alleghany County reporting up to 23 inches, snow continued to fall for the next 11 days. The first week of February 2010, saw another 8-10 inches fall on top of an event in late January that had already dropped 10-12 inches causing power outages, and dangerous driving conditions. The biggest snowstorm on record for the City was December 18-19, 2009 with 17.8 inches. The City of Roanoke’s snowiest single day in December occurred in 2018 with 15.2 inches. Since the last iteration of this plan, 31 winter storm or winter weather events have been recorded by NCEI in the planning region. These events are generally widespread and affect multiple localities, meaning that it is more truthful to say that only about 11 individual events have occurred. These events have mostly been characterized by snowfall of less than 10 inches or ice accumulation, with the most widespread impacts being power outages. In January of 2019, a winter storm event resulted in snow and ice across much of the region, with snow accumulations of up to 4.8 inches in some places followed by slight ice accumulations from sleet and freezing rain. In February, another storm affected the region, with around 4 inches of accumulation. The 2020-2021 winter storm season began early in December, when snow and ice accumulations of a half inch to 2.5 inches were observed across the region. Another region-wide storm struck at the end of January, with snowfall amounts of 4-7 inches recorded across the region. Two small winter weather events struck Craig and Roanoke Counties respectively in February. These episodes were brief and resulted in less than half inch accumulations of sleet. Another storm event affected the whole region later in the month, with accumulations of less than 1.5 inches. January of 2022 saw two regional winter storm events. Accumulations in the region ranged from 1.5 to 6.5 inches in the first storm event, and from 1 to 8 inches in the second storm event. January of 2024 saw a small episode of winter weather in Alleghany, followed by an episode of heavy snow in Botetourt and Roanoke Counties with accumulations of 4.8 and 3.5 inches respectively in higher elevations. Page 166 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-55 3.10 Hazards Not Assessed Drought Drought is defined by four factors: precipitation, groundwater levels, streamflow, and reservoir levels. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality monitors drought across the state to designate drought events. Five major droughts affected Virginia in the 20th century, during 1930-32, 1938-42, 1962-71, 1980-82, and from 1998 to 2002. Following the 2002 drought, the Local and Regional Water Supply Planning Regulation was established in Virginia, which required each locality to develop and submit a plan by 2011, either alone or in collaboration with other localities. The Virginia State Water Resources Plan (SWRP) was finalized and released to the public in October 2015. An update of the document was conducted in 2020. There are three water supply plans which overlap the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany region included in the 2020 SWRP: • The Upper James Water Supply Plan: this plan covers Alleghany, Bath, and Highland Counties, as well as Lexington, Buena Vista, Covington, Clifton Forge and Iron Gate and was produced in partnership with Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission. • The Roanoke River Water Supply Plan: this plan covers Roanoke, Bedford, Botetourt, and Franklin Counties as well as the cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Towns of Boones Mill, Buchanan, Fincastle, Rocky Mount, Troutville and Vinton. • The Craig County – Town of New Castle Regional Water Supply Plan: this plan covers Craig County and the Town of New Castle. Figure 23: Water Supply Planning Areas, DEQ Page 167 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-56 The Regional Commission is currently in the process of assisting with updates to regional Water Supply plans following new watershed boundary guidance released in 20247F8. Two plans will be completed for the Roanoke River basin and Upper James basin respectively. These will supply data and information for a future iteration of the SWRP. Water supply planning includes information concerning community water systems and self-supplied users, existing and potential sources of water supply, existing use, and anticipated future water demand. Further integration of water supply planning with the hazard mitigation plan may be advantageous in future plan iterations. Pandemic A pandemic is an epidemic that has reached a global level of spread. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a Public Health Emergency of Concern following identification of the coronavirus COVID-19, followed by a declaration of pandemic on March 11th of that year. The pandemic had harsh economic ripple effects across the Commonwealth and the country. While this document does not assess future pandemic risk, a brief summary of local impacts is included below as a learning opportunity for future disaster events. In Virginia, a State of Emergency was declared on March 12th of 2020. On March 13th all K-12 schools in the Commonwealth were ordered closed. On March 23rd, businesses such as bowling alleys, gyms, and theaters were also ordered closed. On March 24th, restaurants were ordered to close dining rooms. On March 30th, a statewide Stay at Home order was issued. The Stay at Home order remained broadly in effect until May 15th. During Phase One reopening, people were still encouraged to maintain social distancing and mask fully in public. Social gatherings were capped at 10 people, and outdoor dining was allowed at restaurants. On May 29th, Virginians received an official order requiring all people to mask indoors. Phase Two reopening began on June 5th, which allowed an increase in social gatherings from 10 to 50 people. Limited indoor dining returned to restaurants and gyms were able to reopen. On June 8th, evictions proceedings were suspended. On July 1st, Virginia entered Phase Three reopening, which further loosened restrictions. On November 15th, new restrictions were placed limiting all indoor and outdoor gatherings to 25 people due to surging case numbers. On December 14th, a universal stay-at- home order was issued between 12 am and 5 am, along with a universal mask mandate. Social gatherings were limited to 10 people. A vaccine was first made available in Virginia in December of 2020, but was restricted to frontline workers due to availability. As of April 2021, the vaccine was officially available to all Virginians aged 16 or older. The universal indoor mask mandate was lifted in May of 2021, along with all social distancing and venue capacity restrictions. Economic impacts from the pandemic can be seen in a variety of data points, including unemployment rates, spending and tax revenues, and business closures.8F 9 Many community stakeholders found their operations directly affected by the pandemic. While a full list of discussions can be found in Appendix A: Public Engagement Summary, a major takeaway was that non-governmental organizations and nonprofits serving marginalized communities found themselves quickly adapting in order to meet sharp increases in demand for services which government programs were not able to fully cover. This shows that, while NGO 8 (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, n.d.) 9 (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, 2025) Page 168 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-57 and nonprofit aid programs cannot replace government assistance, they are a pivotal part of the post-disaster response, in many cases providing immediate emergency aid while other, longer- term aid was being processed. Hospitals were additionally a frontline for disaster response. Hospitalizations and deaths from the pandemic in the years of 2020-2021 are captured in Table 15. Data comes from Virginia’s Open Data Portal. Table 16: Infections, Hospitalizations, and Deaths due to COVID-19, 2020-2021 Locality Total Cases Hospitalizations Deaths The total number of deaths reported per the Virginia Department of Health and Human Services was 5,000 for the year 2020, 614 more than were observed in 20199F10. The total number of deaths reported due to COVID-19 in 2020 was 560. It is safe to assume that deaths and hospitalizations due to COVID-19 represent an increased burden on hospital and health services staff. Bed capacity at area hospitals is included in Chapter 2: Regional Profile.10F 11. In 2025, there are 1,463 licensed beds in three area hospitals within the service area. Hospitals outside of the service area may receive patients in a diversion event. In the case of the COVID- 19 pandemic, lockdown and social distancing measures reduced spread sufficiently to allow for the care of all patients. In a more acute disaster, hospital bed capacity may be a limiting factor to disaster response, causing a greater loss of life. In the case of Hurricane Helene, further discussed in Section 3.5 in this chapter, diverted patients from Asheville, North Carolina reached Roanoke’s area hospitals in cases where specific treatments were needed for patients (e.g. in high-risk pregnancies) as reported in stakeholder interviews with CHIP. Further study of hospital capacity in disaster situations is recommended but could not be encompassed fully in this plan. 10 (Division of Health Statistics, Virginia Department of Health, n.d.) 11 (Virginia Health Information, 2021) Page 169 of 362 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-58 [blank] Page 170 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-1 Chapter 4. Risk Assessment 4.1 Disaster Rankings Hazards assessed in this chapter include all listed hazards from Chapter 3 with the exception of section 3.11 Hazards Not Assessed and 3.5 Hurricane and Tropical Storm. While the region experiences the impacts of a few tropical storms or depressions and remnants of hurricanes, these impacts are experienced as flooding and wind events, and assessment of these two events reasonably addresses risk from Hurricane and Tropical Storm. This section summarizes the contents of the following sections of the chapter. For more information on what data was used for individual hazard assessment, please refer to the relevant section of this chapter. Definitions of ranking methodology are included for reference. Projected Scale of Event: Hazard events may occur on site-specific, community, or regional scales. Estimated scale of event is derived from the impacts of historic events and the projected likelihood of events to remain substantially similar in the future. Scores are defined by the approximate land area affected by a single event. Projected Scale of Event Local Effects Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Region-Wide Effects Effects of an event are localized to a parcel or Effects of an event affect a Effects of an event affect multiple jurisdictions or the region as a Projected Costs per Annum: Costs are a concrete way to estimate impact from a hazard event. Costs have been derived where possible from NRI and NCEI data, HAZUS modeling, and other sources. Costs are represented as high, medium, and low based off of thresholds defined by the individual jurisdictions. This may mean that costs that are considered high for one jurisdiction are low for another jurisdiction. Page 171 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-2 Projected Costs per Annum Low Medium High Alleghany County Under $25,000 $25,000-$35,000 $35,000 or higher City of Covington Under $25,000 $25,000-$35,000 $35,000 or higher Town of Clifton Forge Under $25,000 $25,000-$35,000 $35,000 or higher Town of Iron Gate Under $25,000 $25,000-$35,000 $35,000 or higher Craig County Under $25,000 $25,000-$35,000 $35,000 or higher Town of New Castle Under $25,000 $25,000-$50,000 $50,000 or higher Botetourt County Under $50,000 $50,000-$200,000 $200,000 or higher Town of Buchanan Under $25,000 $25,000-$50,000 $50,000 or higher Town of Fincastle Under $25,000 $25,000-$50,000 $50,000 or higher Town of Troutville Under $50,000 $50,000-$200,000 $200,000 or higher Roanoke County Under $200,000 $200,00-$1.5 million $1.5 million or higher Town of Vinton Under $25,000 $25,000-$50,000 $50,000 or higher City of Roanoke Under $200,000 $200,00-$1.5 million $1.5 million or higher City of Salem Under $200,000 $200,00-$1.5 million $1.5 million or higher Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Under $25,000 $25,000-$50,000 $50,000 or higher Western Virginia Water Authority Under $25,000 $25,000-$50,000 $50,000 or higher Projected Frequency of Events: This takes into account the data accumulated in Chapter 3 regarding historical events. Frequent small to medium events can be just as impactful as a single large event, and more costly over the long term for communities. Projected Frequency of Event Less than Annual Annual Multiple Times per Year An event occurs once every two or more years. An event occurs on average once a year. An event occurs on average multiple times a year. Projected Local Vulnerabilities: This is the most individual of the rankings. Projected local vulnerability to a hazard may be dependent on many factors, including the location of critical and vulnerable facilities, age of population, and other specific vulnerabilities which may be important to modeling impacts of that hazard. For example, certain hazards become more critical in areas with steeper slopes, or with increased impervious surfaces. When possible, NRI data will inform this ranking. Projected Local Vulnerability Low Medium High Thresholds for these rankings are defined for each hazard. Rankings are made for each locality, using a variety of data sources as appropriate or available. Rankings have then been consolidated for the region and special district service areas. Page 172 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-3 Sections of this chapter will specifically cite annual probability and expected annual loss provided by the National Risk Index when available and appropriate. When not available, the closest reasonable estimate will be supplied for comparison purposes. In the case where HAZUS modeling or other improved local estimates of loss or risk exist, those numbers will be given preference. It is understood that the regional agencies that operate in the region are impacted by the hazards equivalent to the jurisdictions wherein they operate. Further discussion of regional entities included in this plan will occur in Chapter 6: Regional Mitigation Action Plan and Chapter 7: Jurisdiction-Specific Mitigation Action Plans. Once values are assigned to each of these elements, the total score is ranked on the following scale: • Hazard of Low Concern (4 to 6 points) • Hazard of Medium Concern (7 to 9 points) • Hazard of High Concern (10 to 12 points) A regional score and a locality specific score are assigned for each hazard. Page 173 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-4 All Hazard Ranking Table Table 17: All Hazards Ranking Table Hazard Ranking Table: All Hazards Locality Earthquake Extreme Geologic Alleghany County Medium Medium High Medium Medium High Medium City of Covington Medium Low Medium Low Low High Medium Town of Clifton Forge Medium Low High Low Medium Medium Medium Town of Iron Gate Low Low High Low Medium High Medium Craig County Low Low Medium Low Low High Medium Town of New Castle Low Low Medium Low Low High Medium Botetourt County Medium Medium High Low Low High Medium Town of Buchanan Medium Medium High Low Low High Medium Town of Fincastle Medium Medium High Low Low High Medium Town of Troutville Medium Medium High Low Low High Medium Roanoke County Medium Medium High Medium High High Medium Town of Vinton Medium Medium High Low Low Medium Medium City of Roanoke Medium High High Low Low Medium Medium City of Salem Low Medium High Low Low Medium Medium WVWA Service Area Medium Medium High Low Low Medium Medium RVRA Service Area Medium Medium High Low Low High Medium Regional Score Medium Medium High Low Low High Medium Page 174 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-5 Considerations for Special Districts While impacts to specific special district facilities historically are generally discussed in Chapter 3, quantifying future vulnerability is more difficult. For the purposes of this assessment, the service area of each special district will be used as a way to assess risk. Future risk assessment models should further individualize risk for special districts based on service type and systems reliability. Factors for analysis may include infrastructure reliability, employee safety standards, and facilities vulnerabilities. Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission As the Regional Commission service area maps to the planning area with the exception of Franklin County, the overall regional score will describe Regional Commission’s service area risk. In a significant crisis event, the Regional Commission is likely to provide technical support services to all signatories of the plan. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority The RVRA serves the localities of the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the County of Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton. While facilities are primarily located in the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the RVRA or their partners must access all roadways and localities to provide services and maintain operations. Accordingly, the modal score across the member localities is used to assess overall risk to the RVRA. Notably, outcomes from the risk assessment support the high vulnerability to flooding that RVRA has seen historically. This does not mean the RVRA is not susceptible to other hazard events which affect their service area, especially winter storm, where shutdown of roadways may inhibit service provision; wind events, where gusts may create flying shrapnel from solid waste; and extreme temperature, which may inhibit employees from moving to collect solid waste in harsh outdoor conditions or reduce productivity. Western Virginia Water Authority The WVWA serves a broader region than the planning area. The WVWA provides drinking water service for residents and businesses in the City of Roanoke, the Counties of Roanoke, Franklin and Botetourt and the Towns of Boones Mill, Iron Gate and Vinton. Sanitary wastewater service is provided for the greater Roanoke Valley. Through a contractual agreement, water and wastewater service is provided in the Town of Fincastle. They are also working to provide service to the Craig-New Castle Public Service Authority. For the purposes of this assessment, the WVWA risk will be determined the modal score across the City of Roanoke, the Counties of Roanoke, Botetourt, and Craig, and the Towns located therein. Notably, outcomes from the risk assessment support the high vulnerability to flooding that WVWA has seen historically. This does not mean the WVWA is not susceptible to other hazard events which affect their service area, especially extreme temperature, which may affect water and sewer lines as well as pump stations; and drought, which is not assessed in this plan. Additionally, high hazard potential dam documentation located in Appendix H captures facilities located outside of the planning region, including two facilities in Bedford County, as these facilities are critical to water service provision for the region and owned by the WVWA. Page 175 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-6 High Hazard Potential Dams High hazard potential dams are a unique structure within the region which may complicate hazard events. Key risks to dam structures include flooding, earthquake, and geologic hazards. Flooding is one of the most commonly occurring hazards in the region, and improving structures to withstand increased flooding frequency and increasingly high flood events is important in reducing risk of dam failure and downstream inundation. Further analysis is needed to assess structural vulnerability to increased rain and flood events and potential downstream impacts; however, efforts have been made to collect emergency action plans, inundation maps, and dam safety fact sheets where available. Earthquakes may negatively impact dam structures, which can cause the loss of water supply for a community, loss of energy generation, and downstream flooding resulting in loss of life and property damage. Earthquakes may also cause landslides or trigger other geologic hazards which can negatively affect both water quality in the reservoir and impoundment structure access. In 1979, the first Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. However, further documentation in the form of the Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams guidance was not completed until May 2005. This indicates that dams within the region, largely built before that time, may be susceptible to earthquakes. Further analysis is needed to determine the compounding risk factors of earthquakes on high hazard potential dams in the region. A comprehensive list of High Hazard Potential Dams in the region is located in Chapter 3. Dam safety fact sheets and select inundation maps are located in Appendix H. Page 176 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-7 4.2 Earthquake Earthquake is a rare hazard in the region, but several factors make a potential occurrence concerning. The age of housing stock, social vulnerability factors, steep slopes and the lack of experience with this hazard could make a large earthquake deadly in the planning region. Projected Scale of Event In Chapter 3, historic events were discussed. Generally, earthquakes are considered a wide- ranging event which ignore geographic boundaries. The 2020 earthquake was felt throughout most of the service area, despite originating in North Caroline, and was only measured at a V to VI at its epicenter. It is reasonable to expect that a larger earthquake anywhere across the western portion of Virginia or North Carolina could have effects in the region. A large earthquake with an epicenter in the region would likely be felt across the region even if it were a smaller event. The small 2021 earthquake which occurred on the Montgomery County border was felt through parts of Roanoke County, the City of Salem, and the City of Roanoke. Projected Costs of Event Expected losses for this event are difficult to quantify. No historical loss information was found to support this plan. Table 18: Expected Annual Loss and Exposure Values for Earthquake, NRI Locality Expected Annual Loss Exposure Value Alleghany County $ 27,538.00 $ 179,683,942,000.00 City of Covington $ 12,797.00 $ 67,930,465,000.00 Botetourt County $ 58,140.00 $ 395,469,648,000.00 Craig County $ 10,382.00 $ 57,657,907,000.00 Roanoke County $ 293,168.00 $ 1,141,602,462,000.00 City of Roanoke $ 454,632.00 1,181,643,712,000.00 City of Salem $ 116,212.00 300,396,037,000.00 Page 177 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-8 Projected Frequency of Event The USGS Hazard Mapping for earthquakes shows that the region has a 5-25% chance of an earthquake measuring VI or greater on the Mercalli Intensity scale in the next 100 years. This is a relatively low probability consistent with much of Virginia and the east coast. The nearest higher risk center for earthquakes is located on the far side of Kentucky and Tennessee. NRI data indicates the following annual probability and expected annual loss for earthquakes in the region. Towns are included in counties for the purposes of this analysis. Table 19: Annualized Frequency Values for Earthquakes, NRI Locality Annualized Frequency Value (%) Alleghany County 0.03 City of Covington 0.03 Botetourt County 0.03 Craig County 0.04 Roanoke County 0.039 City of Roanoke 0.048 City of Salem 0.04 Page 178 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-9 Figure 24: Earthquake Risk Mapping, USGS Page 179 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-10 Projected Local Vulnerability Eighty percent of the housing stock in the region was built prior to 1980. These structures are likely not protected from earthquakes. Per FEMA, existing buildings are the biggest contributor to seismic risk in the United States today. Building codes prior to 1970 may not have included seismic design, which is a key factor in mitigating possible damage from earthquakes. A deeper look at the numbers shows that residences in Alleghany County, the City of Covington, and the City of Roanoke may be uniquely vulnerable to earthquakes. In the City of Covington, three out of four dwelling units are likely at risk from earthquakes. Table 20: Homes Built Before 1970, ACS 5-Year Estimate 2023 Housing Units Built before 1970 Percentage built before 1970 Virginia 1,080,622 30% Alleghany County 4,082 52% City of Covington 2,341 77% Botetourt County 4,119 27% Craig County 803 34% Roanoke County 14,370 34% City of Roanoke 31,496 64% City of Salem 5,406 49% The 2024 Edition of FEMA’s Seismic Design Category Maps show designations for the International Building Code and the International Residential Code regarding seismic design11F12. The majority of the planning region is located in category B of the International Residential Code. Other factors that are worth assessing in future plans may include soil composition, building height, and number of manufactured homes. Soil composition is directly considered in the applicability the 2024 Edition of FEMA’s Seismic Design Category Maps. High risk soils must do site specific assessment. For the local vulnerability score, designations of low, medium and high were assigned at natural thresholds of under 50 percent of aged dwellings, 50-75 percent of aged dwellings, and 75 percent or more of aged dwellings. Towns share the same score as the county in which they are located. This is not a perfect methodology and should be revisited in future iterations of the plan. Age of housing or building stock in towns may trend significantly higher than that of the enclosing county. 12 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2024) Page 180 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-11 Hazard Ranking Table Table 21: Hazard Ranking for Earthquake Hazard Ranking Table: Earthquake Locality Scale of Event Costs per Annum Frequency of Event Local Vulnerability Score Overall Score Alleghany County Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Medium Medium City of Covington Region-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual High Medium Town of Clifton Forge Region Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Medium Town of Iron Gate Region-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Low Craig County Region-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Low Town of New Castle Region Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Low Low Botetourt County Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Town of Buchanan Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Town of Fincastle Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Town of Troutville Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Roanoke County Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Town of Vinton Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low City of Roanoke Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Medium City of Salem Region-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Low RVRA Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Medium WVWA Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Medium Regional Score Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Medium Page 181 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-12 4.3 Extreme Temperature Many models project an increase in extreme weather conditions in the coming years, particularly in experiences of heat waves. While the thresholds used to attempt to analyze historical events are detailed in Chapter 3, these measurements are not perfect comparisons to the national definitions for a cold wave and a heat wave. NRI uses these terms to describe extreme temperature. Heat wave: a period of abnormally and uncomfortably hot and unusually humid weather typically lasting two or more days with temperatures outside the historical averages for a given area. Cold wave: a rapid fall in temperature within 24 hours and extreme low temperatures for an extended period. The temperatures classified as a cold wave are dependent on the location and defined by the local National Weather Service (NWS) weather forecast office. While having a national standard for temperature is important, localized conditions can create very different experiences of temperature, as discussed in the previous chapter. Additionally, changing norms in the region due to increased impervious surfaces and general trends in weather conditions can mean that heat events in particular are perceived as more critical by a given region’s residents even when actual temperatures are less than in neighboring regions. Generally, more data is needed to fully support this section. However, an initial attempt to assess impacts of extreme temperatures is included below. Projected Scale of Event Generally, weather-based hazards tend to be the most boundary-crossing. However, land use and elevation vary widely throughout the planning area. Temperatures in the rural and higher elevations of Craig County, northern Botetourt County, and the Alleghany Highlands trend slightly lower than temperatures in the Roanoke Valley. Case Studies of Extreme Temperature Impacts Two case studies of extreme heat and extreme cold incidents are worth looking at to guide this assessment: the heat dome in Seattle, Washington, and the cold wave in Richmond, Virginia. These are extreme events which show the scale of potential damage for this hazard should compounding factors occur. Both of these studies highlight impacts on critical infrastructure as being a compounding factor for extreme temperatures as well as other hazards. Specifically, power grids, healthcare facilities, and water utilities may be at risk from these events. Richmond, Virginia Cold Wave of 2025 On January 6, 2025, residents across Richmond lost access to water during a cold wave that caused major failures to water infrastructure. Specifically, power was lost to the main water treatment plant. Backup battery power failed, the facility flooded and submerged critical electrical systems. There was a complete water treatment plant power outage for nearly 36 hours.12F 13 Water production was restored on January 9th, but a boil water notification was in place until January 11th. Water losses affected area hospitals and other critical facilities. 13 (HNTB Corporation, 2025) Page 182 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-13 Power failure at the water treatment plant occurred during a prolonged cold wave and concurrent winter storm event which caused power loss. An article in The Richmonder on January 1st predicted around two weeks of below average temperatures driven by a polar vortex event.13F14 The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin modeled economic and fiscal costs of a water supply disruption in the National Capital Region. Notable economic losses from water disruption begin in as little as two hours from the event, with impacts disproportionately felt by small businesses.14F 15 Seatle, Washington Heat Wave of 2021 In the summer of 2021 Seattle, Washington experienced a heat dome event. This area of the country does not have typically hot summers – however, triple digit temperatures were recorded. The Washington Department of Health tracked 136 heat-related deaths across the state from June 26 through July 6, 2021. No planning was done for an event of that scale, because no models predicted it. Many of the care facilities in the region did not have air conditioning, making them particularly vulnerable. Power outages occurred due to the stress on the grid, and critical equipment such as imagining and laboratory equipment overheated.15F 16 Impacts from this event were largely felt in healthcare facilities, which were already strained by COVID-19, and in the power grid. Vulnerable populations including the elderly, homeless, and those in healthcare facilities or otherwise lacking mobility to evacuate were especially impacted. Projected Costs of Event Costs of opening shelters, mortality costs and crop damage may all be important costs to consider when assessing the costs of extreme temperature events. For example, consistent temperatures over 90 degrees reduce or halt the growth rate of most grasses used for cattle feed in this region, increasing costs of meat production for farmers and reducing their margins. Higher temperatures result in increased energy costs for home owners, and higher demand on the grid can have complicating factors for utility service providers. These costs are hard to quantify in assessing the impacts of this hazard. Table 22: Expected Annual Loss for Cold Wave, NRI Locality Expected Annual Loss Exposure Value Alleghany County $42,546 $179,478,356,906 City of Covington $9,600 $67,930,487,195 Botetourt County $36,708 $394,929,053,010 Craig County $8,338 $57,558,866,073 Roanoke County $65,026 $1,141,152,733,759 City of Roanoke $100,139 $1,181,121,995,799 City of Salem $25,405 $300,396,106,588 14 (Sublette, 2025) 15 (Tonya E. Thornton, 2024) 16 (ASPR TRACIE, 2023) Page 183 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-14 This hazard is one of the main hazards for which shelters are regularly opened in the planning region. Shelters serve as heating and cooling centers when other weather events cause power outages, or simply when temperatures become extreme enough that those without reliable shelter have need. Further plan iterations should seek to quantify the cost of opening shelters for extreme heat and extreme cold to close the gap in national data, as well as the cost of illness and mortality in the housing insecure via coordination with EMS staff, local area hospitals, and local area homeless shelters. Figure 25: Urban Heat Island Effect, City of Roanoke Projected Frequency of Event Annual average of extreme heat and extreme cold historically are discussed in Chapter 3, with 32 extreme heat days and 5 extreme cold days by definitions used in that chapter. Annual frequency by that definition is multiple times per year. NRI data which is based off of different definitions, contests this. The annualized frequency value for cold waves remains low in the region, at between 0.1 and 0.3 events per year. No annualized frequency data is available for heat wave in the planning region. However, heat waves occur and multiple heat advisories were issued in the region during the writing of this plan. Page 184 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-15 Table 23: Annualized Frequency of Cold Waves, NRI Locality Annualized Frequency Value Alleghany County 0.3 City of Covington 0.3 Botetourt County 0.1 Craig County 0.3 Roanoke County 0.1 City of Roanoke 0.1 City of Salem 0.1 The City of Roanoke conducted urban heat island mapping to capture the risks of extreme heat within this locality. Mapping from this study recorded a variation in temperature of up to 15 degrees Fahrenheit across the City, with temperatures highest in downtown and low-income neighborhoods. Late evening temperatures of greater than 89 degrees were observed in these areas. Projected Local Vulnerability Factors that can increase vulnerability to extreme temperature include the weatherization rate of buildings, impervious surfaces ratios, and age of residents. For very few other hazards is social vulnerability, including factors of age, health and well-being, and poverty, such a key marker of risk. For this reason, social vulnerability numbers from the NRI are a key indicator of local vulnerability for this hazard. Table 24: Social Vulnerability, NRI Locality Social Vulnerability Alleghany County Relatively Low City of Covington Very Low Botetourt County Very Low Craig County Very Low Roanoke County Very Low City of Roanoke Very High City of Salem Relatively Low Specific data readily available for this iteration of the plan include demographic numbers around the age of the population, information on how houses are heated, age of housing stock, and information around vulnerable homeless populations. Table 25 shows Vulnerable Populations by Age. Age increases susceptibility to temperature- related mortality. The table below shows the percentage of the population less than 5 years old Page 185 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-16 and older than 65 years old. Percentages of this vulnerable population do not directly parallel the NRI social vulnerability estimate. Clifton Forge and Alleghany County have the most vulnerable population in the region by age, likely due to the size of the 65 and older population. Table 20: Homes Built Before 1970, ACS 5-Year Estimate 2023 shows that the City of Roanoke and City of Covington have the oldest housing stock by percentage, with City of Roanoke having the highest count of older housing stock. This is an important data point for extreme temperatures. Older housing stock is typically less weatherized, and so extreme temperatures are harder to counteract through heating and cooling systems. Keeping the house regulated is a greater financial burden on the homeowner. Some older houses may not have cooling systems at all, especially in lower income neighborhoods. Heating fuel data is available through the 2023 ACS 5-year estimates. For the purposes of this assessment, several fuel sources have been combined into a non-utility, non-renewable fuel source category. These include bottled, take, or LP gas; fuel oil, kerosene, etc.; coal or coke; wood; and other fuel. Some houses reported no fuel used; these are obviously the most vulnerable households to extreme temperatures. Alleghany and Craig see the highest percentage of non-utility fuel sources used. However, the Counties of Alleghany and Roanoke and the City of Roanoke see high numbers of no fuel source reported, a concerning statistic especially in extreme cold events. These populations are likely to need warming or cooling centers in an extreme temperature wave. As of January 2025, 389 people in the Roanoke Region were currently experiencing homelessness according to the Blue Ridge Continuum of Care Point in Time report. This data is only specifically collected in the Roanoke Valley. While homelessness likely exists in rural areas, it is less extreme and less visible. One factor is that many homeless persons may migrate within the region to find services, which are largely clustered in more urbanized areas. Extreme temperature, especially extreme heat, potentially affects multiple assets, including infrastructure and healthcare facilities, and further assessment of this hazard is needed. It is notable that most of the key assets most impacted by extreme temperature, including the area Level I Trauma Center Roanoke Memorial Hospital and the main headquarters of the Western Virginia Water Authority, are located in the City of Roanoke. Page 186 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-17 Table 25: Vulnerable Populations by Age Locality Total Population Under 5 65 and over Total Vulnerable Percent Vulnerable Alleghany County* 14,641 603 3,801 4,404 30% Botetourt County 33,875 1,437 8,005 9,442 28% Craig County 4,881 359 939 1,298 27% Roanoke County 88,755 3,891 19,573 23,464 26% Covington City 5,671 332 1,103 1,435 25% Roanoke City 98,677 6,353 17,227 23,580 24% Salem City 25,477 1,039 4,965 6,004 24% Town of Clifton Forge 3,483 231 892 1,123 32% Town of Vinton 8,008 431 1,531 1,962 25% Table 26: Heating Fuel Source by Locality, ACS 5-year Estimates Electricity 4,110 1,378 8,791 1,131 18,842 21,155 4,047 Utility Gas 749 944 2,028 8 16,290 19,215 5,508 Solar Energy - - 56 - 13 25 - Non- utility, non- 1,394 2,195 3,993 2,914 No fuel used 39 8 35 9 93 120 27 Total Units Assessed 6,292 2,493 13,105 1,752 39,231 43,429 10,140 Percent Utility Percent Non- 23% 7% 17% 35% 10% 7% 6% Page 187 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-18 Hazard Ranking Table Table 27: Hazard Ranking for Extreme Temperature Hazard Ranking Table: Extreme Temperatures Locality Scale of Event Costs per Annum Frequency of Event Local Vulnerability Score Overall Score Alleghany County Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Medium Medium City of Covington Region-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Low Low Town of Clifton Forge Region Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Low Town of Iron Gate Region-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Low Craig County Region-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Low Town of New Castle Region Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Low Low Botetourt County Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Town of Buchanan Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Town of Fincastle Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Town of Troutville Region-Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Roanoke County Region-Wide Effects Medium Annual Medium Town of Vinton Region-Wide Effects Medium Annual Medium City of Roanoke Region-Wide Effects Medium Annual High City of Salem Region-Wide Effects Low Annual Medium RVRA Region-Wide Effects Medium Medium Medium Medium WVWA Region-Wide Effects Medium Low Medium Medium Regional Score Region-Wide Effects Medium Annual Low Medium Page 188 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-19 4.4 Flooding Flooding is one of the most impacting hazards to the region. All of the jurisdictions and special districts within this plan have to deal directly with flooding on at least an annual basis. The HAZUS model for flooding in the region includes a 100-year and 500-year model. All reports are located in Appendix D. Flood Hazard Areas are also mapped in Appendix D. There are two types of flooding of concern in the region. Riverine flooding is most common. Most of the data in this chapter will focus on riverine flooding. Flooding due to failed infrastructure is also an issue across the planning region, specifically failure of culverts and other stormwater detention or diversion infrastructure, and failure of dams. Stormwater infrastructure failure is an issue in some localities, most commonly in more urbanized areas including in the Cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem. Infrastructure typically fails when not designed to transmit the volume of water produced by a given precipitation event. Culverts, which allow stormwater to pass under roads or railways, are designed for 100-year events in most cases, though some may be designed for higher flow where safety impacts are of particular concern.16F 17 Documenting failed or overwhelmed stormwater infrastructure, especially where it can directly impact critical facilities beyond roadways, is an important potential project for local governments. The City of Covington recently received funding from the Community Flood Preparedness Fund to complete their Drainage Study mentioned in Chapter 3. Resilience Plans from the City of Roanoke and the City of Salem also address this kind of flooding. A flood prone roadway study was completed by the Regional Commission in 2005. The outcomes of the study were documented in the 2019 Plan. This study has not been updated. One of the most common drivers of extreme precipitation events which produce flooding in the region is hurricanes. For this reason, hurricane hazards are considered included for assessment in this section. The history of hurricane events and hurricane-derived flooding is included in Chapter 3. Several localities in the region are CRS communities. Other localities have indicated interest. Where appropriate information in this section will support this designation. Projected Scale of Event The frequency of large-scale flood events is projected via the 100-year and 500-year floodplain for given parcels. The majority of flood events are more likely to be smaller, semi-local events driven by precipitation. Because riverine flooding specifically is tied to streams which flow through multiple localities, a flood in a specific watershed also usually affects multiple localities in the planning region. For example, a flood of the Roanoke River would affect Roanoke County, the City of Salem, the City of Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton to varying degrees. Similarly, a flood event on the James River could affect Botetourt County and the Town of Buchanan, or, if the entire Upper James watershed is impacted, the Alleghany Highlands localities. Flooding is largely driven by precipitation. Changes in precipitation patterns in the region have resulted in stronger individual precipitation events over the last several years, which increase flooding impacts. 17 (Virginia Department of Transportation, 2002) Page 189 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-20 As discussed in Chapter 3: Hazard Identification, multiple high hazard dams exist in the region. Specific known structural vulnerabilities and safety incidents are documented in that chapter. Although flood inundation maps are a requirement of the current Impounding Structure Regulations, Virginia DCR does not currently have this information available in a digital form. Were these maps available, they would illustrate the probable area of flooding downstream of a dam in the event of failure. Projected Costs of Event For this plan, a HAZUS model was run for riverine flooding at the 100-year and 500-year thresholds. The full reports are contained in Appendix D: Flooding HAZUS Reports. Table 28: Estimated Annual Loss for Flooding, NRI Locality Expected Annual Loss Exposure Value Alleghany County $1,269,955 $16,809,384,028 City of Covington $175,909 $6,391,387,076 Botetourt County $504,537 $16,236,678,289 Craig County $31,287 $3,055,738,660 Roanoke County $600,519 $26,537,346,445 City of Roanoke $752,345 $38,605,696,944 City of Salem $621,251 $34,391,371,524 While the estimated annual loss for flooding is already high for many localities, a 100-year flood event could have catastrophic impacts to the region. The following include possible outcomes of a 100-year flood event. An event is unlikely to occur across the entire region at the same time, as multiple watersheds are represented. However, as Hurricane Helene showed in western North Carolina, this is not an impossible scenario. • Damage to Roanoke Memorial hospital resulting in the loss of 703 beds in the region. • 11,401 people living in the region displaced; 1,632 people requiring temporary shelter. • Significant damage to transportation systems across the region. • Damage to water and wastewater systems in Alleghany County and City of Salem, and damage to wastewater systems in Botetourt, Covington, Craig, and Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke. • Damage to public schools in Covington, Craig, and Salem. • Damage to two emergency operations centers and two fire stations in Covington. • Damage to one fire station in the Roanoke area. • Damage to police stations in Alleghany, Covington, and the Roanoke area. Mitigation of these facilities for a 100-year or greater flood event is a desirable outcome of this plan. Page 190 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-21 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority The following vulnerabilities were identified by Roanoke Valley Resource Authority staff. • Smith Gap Landfill: The landfill is outside of the 100-year floodplain but the initial portion of the access road located off the Exit 128 of I-81 would be impacted by the 100-year flood based on current FEMA mapping. • Tinker Creek Transfer Station: Much of this facility is located in the 100-year floodplain, though the main operations building is located outside the floodplain. • Salem Transfer Station: This facility is located entirely in the 100-year floodplain. Western Virginia Water Authority Several facilities owned and operated by the Western Virginia Water Authority are within the 100- year floodplain. Table 29: WVWA Facilities in the Floodplain Facility Location Address Muse Spring Water Treatment Facility Roanoke City 2135 MOUNT PLEASANT BLVD SE, Roanoke, VA, 24014 Roanoke Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility Roanoke City 1502 Brownlee Ave, Roanoke SE, VA 24014 Eagle Rock Wastewater Treatment Facility Botetourt Co. 14501 Church St. Eagle Rock, VA 24085 Projected Frequency of Event Overall frequency of flood events by locality is best assessed through the National Risk Index. A definition for the threshold of riverine flooding captured by the NRI (e.g. 2-year flood, 5-year flood, etc.) was not readily available. However, more frequent flood events do directly impact operations for many localities in the region, specifically outdoor recreation operations and roadways. Table 30: Annualized Frequency for Flooding, NRI Locality Annualized Frequency Value (Events per Year) Alleghany County 1.1 City of Covington 0.3 Botetourt County 1.7 Craig County 0.6 Roanoke County 2.1 City of Roanoke 1.6 City of Salem 0.9 Page 191 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-22 Projected Local Vulnerability One way to demonstrate specific local vulnerability is by looking at the number of repetitive loss structures in the locality. Repetitive loss structures are defined as a structure that has had two or more claims within any 10-year period since 1978 of more than $1,000 paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Identifying repetitive loss structures is one of the ways to receive points in the CRS program. As a point-to-point comparison the most effective way to assess local vulnerability would be to assess the percentage of structures that are repetitive loss structures within the locality. However, for the purposes of this plan comparison will be made between real count of structures. Maps of the estimated locations of repetitive loss structures are included in Appendix D. However, these maps date from 2019, the last available data to the Commission, so the estimates below are more accurate. In looking at Local Vulnerability for this hazard, towns are grouped with the counties in which they are located in all cases, as more specific geographic data is not known. Page 192 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-23 Table 31: Repetitive Loss Structures by Locality, FEMA Locality NFIP Repetitive Loss NFIP Serious Repetitive Loss Federal Mitigation Assistance Repetitive Mitigation Assistance Serious Repetitive Primary Single Family Dwelling 22 0 1 0 12 Single Family Residential Building 3 0 0 0 1 Non Residential Building 2 0 0 0 0 Single Family Dwelling 19 3 1 3 5 Non Residential Building 8 2 0 2 0 Non Residential Building B 1 1 0 1 0 Single Family Dwelling 4 0 0 1 1 Non Residential Building 1 0 0 0 0 Single Family Dwelling 4 0 0 1 3 Non Residential Building 2 0 0 0 0 Single Family Dwelling 47 4 2 5 26 2-4 Unit Residential Building 2 0 0 0 0 Residential Building More than 4 Units 7 0 0 0 0 Non Residential Business 1 0 0 0 0 Single Family Residential Building 6 0 0 0 6 Non Residential Building 22 7 0 11 0 Single Family Dwelling 29 1 1 3 23 Residential Building More than 4 Units 1 0 0 0 0 Single Family Residential Building 9 1 0 1 9 Non Residential Building 1 1 0 1 0 Non Residential Building B 1 0 0 0 0 Page 193 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-24 Locality NFIP Repetitive Loss NFIP Serious Repetitive Loss Federal Mitigation Assistance Repetitive Mitigation Assistance Serious Repetitive Primary Single Family Dwelling 56 9 4 15 41 2-4 Unit Residential Building 5 1 0 1 1 Residential Building More than 4 Units 12 12 0 12 0 Non Residential Business 2 2 0 2 0 Single Family Residential Building 8 4 1 4 7 Residential Manufactured Home 1 0 0 0 1 Non Residential Building 6 1 0 1 0 Page 194 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-25 Hazard Ranking Table Table 32: Hazard Ranking Table for Flooding Hazard Ranking Table: Flooding Locality Scale of Event Costs per Frequency of Vulnerability Overall Alleghany County Region-Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Medium City of Covington Region Wide Effects High Less than Annual Low Medium Town of Clifton Forge Region Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Medium High Town of Iron Gate Region Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Medium High Craig County Region Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Medium Town of New Castle Region Wide Effects Medium Less than Annual Low Medium Botetourt County Region Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Medium High Town of Buchanan Region Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Medium High Town of Fincastle Region Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Medium High Town of Troutville Region Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Medium High Roanoke County Region Wide Effects Medium Multiple Times per Year Medium High Town of Vinton Region Wide Effects Medium Multiple Times per Year Medium High City of Roanoke Region Wide Effects Medium Multiple Times per Year High High City of Salem Region-Wide Effects Medium Annual High RVRA Region-Wide Effects Medium Multiple Times per Year Medium High WVWA Effects Medium per Year Medium High Page 195 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-26 4.5 Geologic Hazards For the purposes of this assessment, landslide and karst have been grouped under geologic hazards. Both of these hazards include often localized sudden ground movement. Landslide is most common in areas with high slopes, which includes much of the planning region. In Chapter 3, only one historic landslide of note was recorded in the past five years. However, the region has many characteristics which make landslides a hazard of concern. Karst is a hazard unique to particular geologies. As such it is difficult to find national resources for assessing this hazard. Data in this section comes from the Virginia Department of Energy, Department of Conservation and Recreation, and Department of Emergency Management. The major risk for karst areas is the development of sinkholes that directly or indirectly affect critical infrastructure. The Virginia Department of Energy began mapping karst via KarstView along the I-81 corridor following several sinkhole events that directly affected this interstate.17F 18 However, this mapping is somewhat opaque in terms of capturing likelihood of a sinkhole or potential costs. The second impact from karst is pollution of groundwater. In the planning region, groundwater remains a major source of water supply for several localities, including the Western Virginia Water Authority service area and the Alleghany Highlands. A full list of known wells is included in the Critical Facilities Inventory in Appendix F. This hazard impact is not fully explored in this plan. Both of these hazards show a relationship with high rain events. Projected Scale of Event Sinkhole events are highly localized events, usually affecting a specific facility or lot. Most landslide events are also localized, some impacting as little as one parcel. In extreme conditions, such as Hurricane Helene in Asheville, multiple landslides may occur. Sometimes landslides can build upon one another as was the case in Nelson and Albemarle Counties. Case Study: Past Landslides in Nelson and Albemarle Counties Nelson and Albemarle Counties share similar topographic characteristics to the region. In August 1969, an extreme rainfall event instigated by Hurricane Camille caused over 7,800 landslides, which created approximately 2,000 acres worth of impact. One hundred and twenty-five people died in Nelson County alone from impacts of this storm system, which included flooding and landslide impacts.18F19 This was a similar event to Hurricane Helene, which struck western North Carolina and Southwest Virginia in September of 2024. Geology and Mineral Resources, an office of the Virginia Department of Energy, received funding through VDEM and FEMA in 2017 and 2020 to complete a landslide hazard mapping study for Nelson and Albemarle Counties. This kind of local study can have greater accuracy than national models. The events in 1969 and in 2024 highlight the importance of having good information to plan emergency response to this hazard. Working with Geology and Mineral Resources is the best path forward for specific and nuanced geologic hazards studies in the region. 18 (Virginia Department of Energy, n.d.) 19 (Landslide Hazard Mapping, n.d.) Page 196 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-27 Projected Costs of Event Costs of sinkholes can range depending on the location of the sinkhole. A sinkhole directly affecting a major roadway is probably one of the most costly events. Costs come from direct damage to infrastructure at inception and then include stabilization efforts for the sinkholes once established. The largest of the three sinkholes which affected I-81 in Augusta County cost over $100,000 to repair. It measured 20 feet by 11 feet and 22 feet deep.19F 20 Many sinkholes open up in fields and other open spaces, and therefore have limited and localized costs, if any. Expected annual loss for landslide is available in the National Risk Index. Costs are generally low, but it is important to note that the cost of landslides varies widely depending on location. Because this is such a localized event, impacts can be quite targeted. The landslide recorded in 2021 included $25,000 in damages from a single building. Widespread events in more populated areas could quickly accrue costs. Table 33: Expected Annual Loss, NRI Locality Loss Exposure Value Alleghany County $46,739 $140,941,177,976 City of Covington $21,900 $48,638,641,691 Botetourt County $37,168 $226,916,018,449 Craig County $21,900 $38,621,453,915 Roanoke County $333,796 $653,035,188,326 City of Roanoke $122,400 $679,915,744,515 City of Salem $21,900 $198,922,958,937 Projected Frequency of Event There is no good data on the frequency of sinkholes for each separate jurisdiction. The closest comparison may be to the expected annual frequency of landslides in the area, which, despite the increased susceptibility to landslides shown in the topographic data, is relatively low. The National Risk Index measures projected landslide frequency based off of the number of landslides recorded over a twelve-year period between 2010 and 2021. All of the localities in the region showed a projected frequency of zero landslides per year, despite some localities having events on record during that time period. The landslide noted in Chapter 3 was not captured in this dataset. 20 (Virginia Department of Emergency Management, 2023) Page 197 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-28 Table 34: Events on Record 2010-2021, NRI Locality Events on Record (2010-2021) Alleghany County 1 City of Covington 0 Botetourt County 1 Craig County 0 Roanoke County 5 City of Roanoke 0 City of Salem 0 Despite the NRI data, the USGS Landslide Susceptibility model shows strong landslide vulnerability in the area. Darker red indicates increased vulnerability to landslides. Steep slopes mean that most of the region is vulnerable to landslides in the right conditions, though notably the more populated areas show less vulnerability. Projected Local Vulnerability Local vulnerability to karst is poorly understood – it is unknown what factors may make a jurisdiction more or less vulnerable to karst. One potential factor for consideration is the number of households using unmonitored groundwater wells – this could show a locality specific vulnerability to this particular hazard. Alternatively, karst may be more prevalent in climates where long dry spells are followed by periods of intense rain. Further assessment is needed to understand the unique factors that predispose jurisdictions to karst damage. A small portion of the planning region is located inside of a USGS recognized sinkhole hotspot, mostly in Craig and northern Roanoke Counties. Less populous portions of Alleghany and Botetourt Counties may also be at risk. A full definition of a sinkhole hotspot is not readily available on the USGS website. Studies done in the Commonwealth are largely completed on a case-by- case basis by state agencies, including VDCR, VDOT, and the Virginia Department of Energy. Thus, while it is known that some risk around sinkholes exists in the planning region, there is no definitive data across the whole region that can be used to address local vulnerability. Page 198 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-29 Figure 26: USGS Sinkhole Hotspots, Accessed 2025 Landslides are also difficult to quantify. During Hurricane Helene, one of the complicating factors experienced by neighboring communities in North Carolina and far Southwest Virginia was landslides caused by extreme rain. The Virginia Department of Energy recommends identifying areas prone to future landslide hazards in order to target evacuation orders during severe rainstorm events, defined as greater than 5 inches in 24 hours. The NOAA Atlas shows projected rainfall event frequency. Rainfall data for the City of Covington, Craig County, and the City of Roanoke show that 5 inches in 24 hours is more or less a 25-year storm in Covington and Craig, but closer to a 10-year storm in the City of Roanoke. A framework based on rainfall frequency could be a way to further assess potential landslide risk in future updates of this plan. Mapping of Critical and Vulnerable Facilities against the USGS Landslide Susceptibility Model shows that many facilities are endangered by landslides in the region. The Regional Commission classifies critical and vulnerable facilities as having higher-than-average susceptibility when over half of the area within each 90-m grid cell is susceptible to landslides. Using this methodology, a total of 91 critical facilities and 42 vulnerable facilities were in an above average risk area. Future projections around this hazard should take into account more advanced analysis of vulnerability to landslides via GIS manipulation and analysis of rainfall probability as a major determinant of likelihood of landslides. Page 199 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-30 Figure 27: Regional Critical Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Susceptible Areas. Page 200 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-31 Figure 28: Regional Vulnerable Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Susceptible Areas Page 201 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-32 Figure 29: Landslide Susceptibility Model in the Region Page 202 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-33 Table 35: Critical Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Susceptible Areas by Location Locality Critical Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Alleghany County 17 Bath County 1 Bedford County 2 Botetourt County 5 Craig County 1 Franklin County 4 Roanoke County 17 City of Covington 1 City of Roanoke 12 City of Salem 5 Town of Vinton 8 Town of Troutville 2 Town of New Castle 1 Town of Fincastle 3 Town of Clifton Forge 7 Town of Buchanan 4 Town of Iron Gate 1 Table 36: Vulnerable Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Susceptible Areas by Location Locality Vulnerable Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Craig County 3 Roanoke County 1 City of Roanoke 18 City of Salem 9 Town of Vinton 5 Town of Troutville 1 Town of New Castle 1 Town of Fincastle 1 Town of Clifton Forge 2 Town of Buchanan 1 Page 203 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-34 Hazard Ranking Table Table 37: Hazard Ranking for Geologic Hazards Hazard Ranking Table: Geologic Hazards Locality Scale of Event Costs per Annum Frequency of Event Local Vulnerability Score Overall Score Alleghany County Local Effects High Less than Annual High Medium City of Covington Local Effects Low Less than Annual Low Low Town of Clifton Forge Local Effects Low Less than Annual Low Low Town of Iron Gate Local Effects Low Less than Annual Low Craig County Local Effects Low Less than Annual High Town of New Castle Local Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Low Botetourt County Local Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Town of Buchanan Local Effects Low Less than Annual Low Town of Fincastle Local Effects Low Less than Annual Low Town of Troutville Local Effects Low Less than Annual Low Roanoke County Local Effects Medium Less than Annual High Town of Vinton Local Effects Low Less than Annual Medium City of Roanoke Local Effects Low Less than Annual High City of Salem Local Effects Low Less than Annual Low RVRA Local Effects Low Less than Annual High Low WVWA Local Effects Low Less than Annual Low Low Regional Score Local Effects Low Less than Annual Low Low Page 204 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-35 4.6 Wildfire Wildfire risk analysis benefits from some of the most robust data available. Data in this section comes from the National Risk Index to establish easy points of comparison for risk ranking, and from the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment tool. Assistance was provided by VDOF staff in gathering the data for this section. The entire regional report for wildfire risk is available in Appendix E: Wildfire Reports. Projected Scale of Event The VDOF and the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment tool provides a Characteristic Fire Intensity Scale, which uses data on significant fuel hazards, wind, and weather conditions in a WildEST framework to provide a standard scale to measure potential wildfire intensity. Figure 30: Characteristic Fire Intensity Scale, VDOF This evaluation varies by locality. Data is available for Clifton Forge in this model. Class 1, Very Low: Very small, discontinuous flames, usually less than 1 foot in length; very low rate of spread; no spotting. Fires are typically easy to suppress by firefighters with basic training and non- specialized equipment. Small flames, usually less than two feet long; small amount of very short range spotting possible. Fires are easy to suppress by trained firefighters with protective equipment and specialized tools. Flames up to 9 feet in length; short-range spotting is possible. Trained firefighters will find these fires difficult to suppress without support from aircraft or engines, but dozer and plows are generally effective. Increasing potential for harm or damage to life and property. Large Flames, up to 40 feet in length; short-range spotting common; medium range spotting possible. Direct attack by trained firefighters, engines, and dozers is generally ineffective, indirect attack may be effective. Significant potential for harm or damage to life and property. Class 5, Very High: Flames exceeding 200 feet in length; expect extreme fire behavior Page 205 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-36 Table 38: Characteristic Fire Intensity, VDOF Alleghany County City of Covington Clifton Forge Botetourt County Scale Category Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage 0 12,813 4% 1,887 52% 930 47% 28,661 8% 1 8,755 3% 308 8% 233 12% 10,930 3% 1.5 19,694 7% 218 6% 67 3% 35,497 10% 2 77,686 27% 422 12% 277 14% 84,988 24% 2.5 117,072 41% 480 13% 368 19% 102,757 29% 3 33,840 12% 185 5% 31 2% 65,435 19% 3.5 7,383 3% 117 3% 28 1% 11,030 3% 4 6,119 2% 12 0% 41 2% 7,634 2% 4.5 1,858 1% 2 0% 8 0% 2,433 1% 5 8 0% 0 0% 0 0% 37 0% Greater than 5 - 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total Acreage 285,227 3,630 1,981 349,400 Craig County Roanoke County City of Roanoke City of Salem Scale Category Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage 0 8,381 4% 27,374 17% 21,475 78% 7,134 76% 1 4,872 2% 8,320 5% 2,080 8% 859 9% 1.5 10,334 5% 10,114 6% 291 1% 164 2% 2 48,606 23% 32,438 20% 1,352 5% 566 6% 2.5 90,580 43% 52,508 33% 1,363 5% 360 4% 3 34,794 16% 19,715 12% 817 3% 217 2% 3.5 6,349 3% 4,895 3% 38 0% 11 0% 4 4,759 2% 2,066 1% 33 0% 23 0% 4.5 2,778 1% 2,884 2% 15 0% 2 0% 5 144 0% 355 0% 0 0% 0 0% Greater than 5 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total Acreage 211,596 160,668 27,464 9,337 Page 206 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-37 Projected Costs of Event Expected Annual Loss and Exposure Value are not particularly high for this hazard. However, some context is missing from the NRI data. Table 39: Expected Annual Loss for Wildfire, National Risk Index Locality Expected Annual Loss Exposure Value Alleghany County $2,536 $3,900,729,935 City of Covington $194 $1,969,158,111 Botetourt County $8,737 $10,057,952,335 Craig County $784 $1,237,584,666 Roanoke County $4,347 $62,863,692,940 City of Roanoke $3,671 $62,717,344,368 City of Salem $1,285 $17,697,712,831 Roanoke County Fire & Rescue (RCFRD) has demonstrated a substantial financial commitment to wildland fire protection, ensuring the community is safeguarded against the growing risks of brush and wildland-urban interface fires. The County’s Wildland Fire Team responds to approximately 80 calls for service annually, deploying 33 specially trained personnel in wildland fire suppression. This capability is supported by a dedicated fleet of eight brush trucks, one Wildland Fire Engine, and one deployable trailer equipped with specialized resources. In addition to serving local needs, Roanoke County maintains a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Federal Forestry Department, enabling the department to provide mutual aid on federal property within the County and to deploy trained personnel and assets to assist in wildfire suppression efforts in other states. This dual capability reflects both a strong local investment and a regional commitment to public safety, resource protection, and interagency cooperation. Projected Frequency of Event The NRI Annualized Frequency Value for this hazard is low throughout the planning region. It is important to note that while wildfires do occur frequently in the planning region, the majority of fires are small, with negligible risk and impact. The threshold for a major fire cited in Chapter 3 is 100 acres. One major fire has occurred in Roanoke County in the past five years, which implies a 20 percent chance of a major fire in a given five-year period. More data is needed to assess, but the frequency value for Roanoke County’s assessment was adjusted up in the risk assessment. Page 207 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-38 Table 40: Annualized Frequency Value for Wildfire, NRI Locality Annualized Frequency Value (%) Alleghany County 0.027 City of Covington 0.001 Botetourt County 0.047 Craig County 0.008 Roanoke County 0.002 City of Roanoke 0.001 City of Salem 0.001 Projected Local Vulnerability Housing Unit Risk represents the relative potential risk to housing units. This allows for an estimate of how many housing units are at a high risk of wildfire damage. The Housing Unit Risk Category is defined by four qualities: likelihood, intensity, susceptibility, and exposure. A raster at 30-m resolution was used in this methodology, with full details provided in Jaffe et al., 2024.20F 21 Values moved from 0 (no damage to structure) to -100 (complete loss). This metric is used to estimate the acreage at a risk category of 4 to 6 within each of the available localities for, and that percentage value is ranked as high, medium, or low in the vulnerability table. Category 6 would be a total loss of structure, whereas category 4 would be a 50 percent loss of structure. Data for towns was unavailable from this data source with the exception of Clifton Forge, which has reverted in status from a city to a town. Towns share the ranking of the county in which they are located. Another factor that may affect local vulnerability is the percentage of federal forest land and the topography. Rural areas of Roanoke County, Craig County, and Alleghany County are federally managed. Events on federally managed lands may not reflect accurately in historical event databases or in models generated by state agencies due to issues with jurisdiction, meaning actual vulnerability may be higher for these localities. Local vulnerability has been adjusted to account for that factor. 21 (Jaffe, et al., 2024) Page 208 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-39 Table 41: Housing Unit Risk, Virginia Department of Forestry Alleghany County City of Covington Clifton Forge Botetourt County Risk Ranking Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage 1 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 0% 2 180 0% 21 1% 4 0% 312 0% 3 11,411 4% 430 12% 149 7% 30,108 9% 4 33,308 12% 1,617 45% 832 42% 75,424 22% 5 5,820 2% 761 21% 683 34% 7,258 2% 6 - 0% 0 0% 12 1% 0 0% Total Acreage 285,227 3,630 1,981 349,400 No Risk 234,506 82% 801 22% 301 15% 236,293 68% Risk Greater than 4 39,128 14% 2,378 34% 1527 77% 82,682 24% Craig County Roanoke County City of Roanoke City of Salem Risk Ranking Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage Acreage Percentage 1 0 0% 42 0% 322 1% 116 1% 2 5 0% 495 0% 857 3% 498 5% 3 16,588 8% 15,771 10% 5,165 19% 2,592 28% 4 23,711 11% 59,729 37% 7,527 27% 4,543 49% 5 686 0% 9,941 6% 1,794 7% 595 6% 6 0 0% 17 0% 1 0% 0 0% Total Acreage 211,596 160,668 27,464 9,337 No Risk 170,607 81% 74,673 46% 11,798 43% 993 11% Risk Greater than 4 24,397 12% 69,687 43% 9,322 34% 5,138 55% Page 209 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-40 Hazard Ranking Table Table 42: Hazard Ranking Table for Wildfire Hazard Ranking Table: Wildfire Locality Scale of Event Costs per Frequency of Vulnerability Overall Alleghany County Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual High City of Covington Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Town of Clifton Forge Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual High Town of Iron Gate Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual High Craig County Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Town of New Castle Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Botetourt County Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Town of Buchanan Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Town of Fincastle Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Town of Troutville Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Low Roanoke County Jurisdiction-Wide Effects High Annual High Town of Vinton Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium City of Roanoke Local Effects Low Less than Annual Medium City of Salem Local Effects Low Less than Annual Medium RVRA Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Low WVWA Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Less than Annual Medium Low Regional Score Effects Low Annual Medium Low Page 210 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-41 4.7 Wind Event Wind events are one of the most frequent hazards in the planning region. They can also be costly. This section looks at data from the National Risk Index, National Centers for Environmental Information, and other sources to evaluate risk of wind events including straight line winds and tornados. One major cause of extreme wind in the region is hurricanes. Effects from hurricanes generally spawn straight line winds, but may occasionally spawn tornado winds. Projected Scale of Event Generally, the majority of events experience in the region are straight line winds. Wind events often spawn from bands of storm cells which cut across the region. Most wind events are multi- jurisdictional within a given 24-hour period, though individual impacts are usually most localized. Projected Costs of Event Costs for wind events can vary greatly. In Chapter 3, one of the most expensive wind events documented, an F1 tornado which damaged a local business, resulted in over a million dollars of damages. However, the majority of wind event records in the past five years do not contain damage estimates. In fact only eight percent of the records in the NCEI database for the planning region contained damage estimates. The average cost across events with recorded damages was $112,906, but the average across all wind events was only $10,640. This makes it difficult to estimate the probable economic impact of a given event for the region. The National Risk Index tracks two wind event categories relevant to this hazard (excluding hurricanes, which also spawn wind damages). The Expected Annual Loss for Strong Wind and Tornado are included in the table below. Table 43: Expected Annual Loss for Wind Events, NRI Locality Expected Annual Loss - Expected Annual Loss - Alleghany County $ 172,445.00 $ 45,378.00 City of Covington $ 110,402.00 $ 20,258.00 Botetourt County $ 361,702.00 $ 106,201.00 Craig County $ 84,036.00 $ 14,927.00 Roanoke County $ 1,018,060.00 $ 352,206.00 City of Roanoke $ 1,043,952.00 $ 409,594.00 City of Salem $ 344,362.00 $ 114,772.00 Projected Frequency of Event Wind events occur more than annually around the region. The highest number of occurrences are projected in the Roanoke Valley, which includes the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Roanoke County, and the Town of Vinton. Page 211 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-42 Table 44: Annualized Frequency Value for Wind Events, NRI Events per Year Locality Annualized Frequency Value - Strong Wind Annualized Frequency Value - Tornado Alleghany County 2.3 0.1 City of Covington 2.5 0 Botetourt County 2.7 0.1 Craig County 2.6 0 Roanoke County 3.4 0 City of Roanoke 3.4 0 City of Salem 3.4 0 Projected Local Vulnerability Wind events can compound other hazards, including winter weather and extreme cold. Wind is often a primary factor in power loss following storm events, as strong winds blow down trees and impact powerlines. Power lines are generally privately owned and maintained. Strong winds can also negatively affect RVs and other outdoor recreation users, who can be particularly vulnerable in an event. While a full inventory of mobile homes and RV parks is not currently available, the ACS does provide some data on mobile and manufactured homes which has been used to derive local vulnerability for this plan update. Further analysis is needed in this area, as manufactured homes do not generally have the same level of vulnerability to this hazard as mobile homes. RV park facilities are not captured in this data. For the purposes of this analysis, less than 100 estimated mobile and manufactured homes will be low risk, between 100 and 500 homes will be medium risk, and greater than 500 homes will be considered high risk. Towns are included with their counties unless otherwise noted. Page 212 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-43 Table 45: Mobile and Manufactured Homes, ACS 2019-2023 Estimates21F22 Locality ACS Estimated Alleghany County (including Town of 986 17.5% City of Covington 4.9% Town of Clifton Forge 0 0% Craig County (including Town of 353 14.7% Botetourt County 1210 9.4% Roanoke County 2.06% Town of Vinton 1.1% City of Roanoke 0.83% City of Salem 2.64% 22 (ESRI Demographics Team, 2025) Page 213 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-44 Hazard Ranking Table Table 46: Hazard Ranking for Wind Events Hazard Ranking Table: Wind Event Locality Scale of Event Costs per Frequency of Vulnerability Overall Alleghany County Jurisdiction-Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year High City of Covington Jurisdiction Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Medium High Town of Clifton Forge Jurisdiction Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Low Medium Town of Iron Gate Jurisdiction Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year High High Craig County Jurisdiction Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Medium High Town of New Castle Jurisdiction Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year Medium High Botetourt County Jurisdiction Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year High High Town of Buchanan Jurisdiction Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year High High Town of Fincastle Jurisdiction Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year High High Town of Troutville Jurisdiction Wide Effects High Multiple Times per Year High High Roanoke County Jurisdiction Wide Effects Medium Multiple Times per Year High High Town of Vinton Jurisdiction Wide Effects Medium Multiple Times per Year Low Medium City of Roanoke Jurisdiction Wide Effects Medium Multiple Times per Year Medium Medium City of Salem Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Medium Multiple Times per Year Medium RVRA Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Medium High Medium Medium WVWA Effects High High High High High Page 214 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-45 4.8 Winter Storm Winter storm is another frequent hazard in the area. Localities and the Virginia Department of Transportation spend money every winter preparing the transportation network for winter storm events and ice and snow accumulation. These events also impact powerlines and the electrical grid, similar to wind events and extreme cold. The National Risk Index includes two event types of relevance: ice storm, a freezing rain event with significant ice accumulations of .25 inches or greater; and winter weather, which includes winter storm events in which the main types of precipitation are snow, sleet, or freezing rain. Projected Scale of Event As discussed in Chapter 3, events are generally wide-spread and affect multiple jurisdictions. While effects may vary across the jurisdictions, winter storms are generally a region-wide event. Projected Costs of Event Generally, expected annual loss is higher for winter weather generally than for ice storms specifically, which makes sense given the relative frequency of these events. However, NRI numbers for Craig County are reversed. This may reflect an inaccuracy in the national database. The higher value will be used in ranking this element of the hazard impact. Table 47: Costs of a Winter Weather Event Locality Expected Annual Loss - Expected Annual Loss - Ice Alleghany County $ 11,190.00 $ 1,819.00 City of Covington $ 6,372.00 $ 3,081.00 Botetourt County $ 19,959.00 $ 6,391.00 Craig County $ 3,092.00 $ 20,097.00 Roanoke County $ 103,699.00 $ 2,120.00 City of Roanoke $ 135,292.00 $ 20,524.00 City of Salem $ 37,482.00 $ 6,921.00 Page 215 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-46 Projected Frequency of Event Winter storms occur frequently, several times a year. Ice storms with greater than .25 inches of accumulation are less frequent but still occur at least every other year across the planning region, more frequently than many other hazards. Locality Annualized Frequency Value - Winter Weather Annualized Frequency Value - Ice Storm Alleghany County 3.8 0.5 City of Covington 3.8 0.5 Botetourt County 3.5 0.6 Craig County 3.3 0.5 Roanoke County 3.4 0.6 City of Roanoke 3.4 0.6 City of Salem 2.4 0.6 Page 216 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-47 Projected Local Vulnerability Some localities specifically maintain their roads and winter storm response vehicles. Others are dependent on the Virginia Department of Transportation. Extensive roadway mileage in rural areas combined with topography challenges mean that rural localities are much more sensitive to winter storm events. Accumulations are generally higher, and roadways are generally impacted longer, especially non-arterial feeder roads. Impacted road systems can have numerous negative outcomes, including but not limited to increased car wreck events, increased medical response times or lack of medical access, and economic impacts due to missed work and delayed delivery of goods. VDOT’s priorities for road clearing are included below: • VDOT clears interstates and most primary roads (generally numbered 1 through 599) first. • Crews also plow major secondary roads (numbered 600 and up) with vital emergency and public facilities or those with high traffic volumes. • Snow emergency routes are key among the top priorities. Localities designate these roads for immediate snow removal so emergency vehicles can use them. • Other secondary roads and subdivision streets will be treated if multiday storms hit Virginia, but crews will focus their efforts on roads that carry the most traffic. • Once the snow stops and main roads are clear, residential streets will be sanded or plowed.22F23 Roadway mileage is a metric tracked by VDOT. Localities with higher mileage rates will take longer to fully clear. Data for mileage was taken from the 2024 VDOT Mileage Table Book. Localities with an asterisk maintain their own roads in whole or in part and thus incur greater costs for roadway maintenance. Alternative factors for evaluation in future plans include average precipitation accumulation per event, cost of transit interruptions, or cost of roadway maintenance. Figure 31: Total Mileage by Locality in 2024, VDOT23F24 23 (Virginia Department of Transportation, 2025) 24 (Virginia Department of Transportation, 2024) 878.18 41.44 23.2 1527.61 480.57 1530.71 490.68 135.59 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 ALLEGHANY COUNTY CITY OF COVINGTON* TOWN OF CLIFTON FORGE* BOTETOURT COUNTY CRAIG COUNTY ROANOKE COUNTY CITY OF ROANOKE* CITY OF SALEM* Total Mileage Page 217 of 362 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-48 Hazard Ranking Table Table 48: Hazard Ranking for Winter Storm Hazard Ranking Table: Winter Storm Locality Scale of Event Costs per Frequency of Vulnerability Overall Alleghany County Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year High City of Covington Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low Medium Town of Clifton Forge Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low Medium Town of Iron Gate Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low Medium Craig County Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Medium Medium Town of New Castle Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low Medium Botetourt County Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year High Medium Town of Buchanan Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low Medium Town of Fincastle Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low Medium Town of Troutville Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low Medium Roanoke County Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year High Medium Town of Vinton Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low Medium City of Roanoke Jurisdiction Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Medium Medium City of Salem Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low RVRA Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low Medium WVWA Effects Low per Year Low Medium Regional Score Jurisdiction-Wide Effects Low Multiple Times per Year Low Medium Page 218 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-1 Chapter 5. Capabilities Assessment 5.1 Capability Assessment Framework While Chapter 2: Regional Profile contains a general picture of the region, including of the local jurisdictions served by this document, this chapter will build on that baseline information. The following sections contain a more detailed analysis of the capacity of each of the jurisdictions in this planning effort. Each section will include the following elements: • A general assessment of budget and resources, including staffing. • A list of plans the jurisdiction has or maintains, when they were last updated if that information is available, and which of these plans address hazards. • A list of ordinances and policy mechanisms which can be used to assist with implementation of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, and any barriers that may exist to their use. • Additional NFIP compliance documentation. • Documentation of dam safety activities and concerns. • Other factors that may help with mitigation efforts. Plans and documents previously discussed in Chapter 3: Hazard Identification to meet the goals of the CRS program are marked with an asterisk. Responses to worksheets provided by the localities, which contain more in-depth information about their capabilities and their NFIP programs, are included in Appendix G: Jurisdiction Capability Assessment Surveys. The table below explores one of the best points of comparison between the localities in the region by showing overall revenues and revenues per capita. This clearly illustrates capacity to operate key government services, including mitigation services and disaster response. Data in this chapter comes from a variety of sources. Where possible, data is provided by the Auditor of Public Accounts to the Commonwealth of Virginia. This data reflects real budgets in the years 2024 if available and 2023 if 2024 data was not available. Where neither dataset is available, 2025 or 2026 adopted budgets have been referenced. These budgets are adopted based off of best available information regarding revenues and expenses. In Section 4.3: Extreme Temperature, the NRI Social Vulnerability Index for larger localities within the region was examined. The City of Roanoke was the only locality which ranked Very High in terms of social vulnerability. All other localities ranked Relatively Low or Very Low. Population numbers may vary in this chapter. These were taken from two separate sources, one provided by the Commonwealth’s Auditor of Public Accounts, one provided by the CEDS. Sources are noted as appropriate. Page 219 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-2 Table 49: Comparison of Revenue Across RVARC Member Local Governments Locality Population Total Revenue Total Revenue per Capita Alleghany County* 14,898 $81,004,953.00 $5,437.30 City of Covington 5,567 $32,225,593.00 $5,788.68 Town of Clifton Forge** 3,483 $5,613,161.00 $1,611.59 Botetourt County 33,466 $139,116,476.00 $4,156.95 Craig County 4,855 $18,953,496.00 $3,903.91 Roanoke County 96,519 $ 441,121,263.00 $4,570.30 City of Roanoke* 99,634 $603,957,800.00 $6,061.76 City of Salem 24,985 $164,155,327.00 $6,570.16 Town of Vinton** 8,038 $15,756,600.00 $1,960.26 * Data comes from the 2023 Comparative Report ** Data comes from the website or adopted budget a Data comes from the 2023 and 2024 Comparative Report where available. Where unavailable data Page 220 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-3 5.2 Alleghany County Alleghany County is the northernmost county in the service area, characterized by largely rural development patterns. Approximately half of the locality is federal forest land, and state-owned lands are also present. The population of the County was 11,479 in 2023 excluding the Town of Clifton Forge and is projected to be 13,993 in 2030. The median age is high for the region, at 48.1 years. Median household income is low at $52,546. One small rural hospital provides the majority of medical emergency capacity for the locality. Budget and Staffing Characteristics The Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures shows the following general information about Alleghany County’s real budget for the year 2023. Alleghany County staffs a Chief Building Official and an Emergency Manager. The Zoning Administrator serves as a combined Community Planner, Floodplain Manager, and GIS coordinator. Federal share of revenue in the 2023 budget was over 14 percent. Revenue from the Commonwealth was close to 50 percent, showing a significantly high vulnerability to outside funding sources. Table 50: Alleghany County Budget 2023, Commonwealth of Virginia Alleghany County Budget 2023 Population 14,898 Per Capita $ 1,960.39 Percent of Revenue 36.05% $ 40,281,474.00 Per Capita $ 2,703.82 Percent of Revenue 49.73% Per Capita $ 720.16 Direct Federal Aid $ 788,558.00 0.97% Total Federal Vulnerability $ 11,517,575.00 Total Revenue $ 81,004,953.00 Non-Revenue Receipts $ 77,240.00 Transfers from Other Funds Total Sources Available $ 81,082,193.00 Plans and Planning Schedules Alleghany County currently has two plans in place which specifically address hazard mitigation. These are the Comprehensive Plan, currently being updated and last updated in 2019, and the Emergency Operations Plan, the new version of which is expected to be adopted in November Page 221 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-4 2025. Additional plans in place which could incorporate hazard mitigation in the future include the Capital Improvement Plan. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms Alleghany County maintains a County code, several sections of which provide some opportunity for hazard mitigation. Large amendments to the code are possible but may be constrained by funding and staff capacity. Chapter 30 of the County Code contains Erosion and Sediment Control regulations. These provisions mirror Code of Virginia, § 10.1-563(C). Chapter 34 – Fire Prevention and Protection adopts pertinent sections of the Code of Virginia, § 27-1 et seq. to do with fire management, and additionally describes rules around the sale, possession, and use of fireworks. Chapter 47 of the Code addresses Public Safety. Chapter 52 of the County Code contains the Stormwater Ordinance. This was last adopted in 2014. It integrates the County's stormwater management requirements with its erosion and sediment control, flood insurance, and floodplain management requirements into a unified stormwater program. This facilitates the submission and approval of plans, issuance of permits, payment of fees, and coordination of inspection and enforcement activities in a more convenient and efficient manner. Alleghany County adopted its most recent Floodplain District in December 17, 2010 that requires new residential buildings to be elevated to or above the base flood elevation. The floodplain district is an overlay that applies to all other zoning districts. Additional requirements prevent the obstruction of the floodway. In addition to Federal Regulations, the County has established guidelines for development within flood hazard areas. They can be found in Chapter 66-Zoning, of the Code of the County of Alleghany, Virginia. No construction or development, including fill, can be done in a designated floodway. Development can occur in the 100-year floodplain, however the first-floor elevation of a structure must be at least one foot above the designated flood elevations shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps . Also, structures in the 100-year floodplain must be in compliance with building code requirements for structures in flood hazard areas. Development can occur in the 500-year floodplain with compliance of building code requirements for structures in flood hazard areas. Chapter 66 - Zoning Ordinance, contains, among other things, the established flood hazard areas and guidelines for development therein. Chapter 66 and Chapter 54 - Subdivision Ordinance both contain key regulatory authority over land use in the county. One factor in all localities, including Alleghany, is that many structures may have been built prior to the adoption of these ordinances. Pre-existing structures built in flood prone areas are often only mitigated directly if mitigation is triggered by improvements on the property. NFIP Compliance Community Development is the responsible department for NFIP compliance in Alleghany County. The NFIP coordinator is not a Certified Floodplain Manager. NFIP services include permit review, inspections, review of floodplain mapping for zoning and rezoning, and a GIS layer; however, staff capacity is a barrier to running an effective NFIP program. Alleghany County entered the NFIP in Page 222 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-5 1987. The Indian Draft community within the County is vulnerable to flooding but has limited NFIP policy coverage. The total amount of paid claims in the community is $2,867,632 for 172 claims. Dam Safety There are four dams in Alleghany County. These are the Clifton Forge Dam (owned and maintained by the Town of Clifton Forge), Gathright Dam (owned and maintained by US Army Corps of Engineers), Pond Lick Branch Dam (privately owned) and WestRock #2 Flyash Lagoon Dam (owned and maintained by WestRock). Alleghany County staff review plans annually with Smurfit WestRock, US ACE, and DCR. The County participated in an exercise with the US ACE on October 2, 2025. Town of Iron Gate The Town of Iron Gate is a small town on the border of Alleghany and Botetourt Counties, which shares a strong cultural identity with the Alleghany Highlands. The Town engages in water and sewer service provision. They are not an active jurisdiction in this plan but participate through Alleghany County. The Town Code deals mainly with solid waste management and water and sewer service provision. The Town of Iron Gate has very limited capacity for mitigation, but some utility lines and structures may be vulnerable to hazards. The Town adopted Alleghany County’s floodplain ordinance to maintain good standing with NFIP. The Town’s effective FIRM date is December 17, 2010. Other Factors The County has also entered into a number of mutual aid agreements in relation to Statewide Aid for Emergency Management, radio communications with neighboring localities and fire and rescue departments, and emergency services. They commonly collaborate with Covington and Clifton Forge, and also with Bath County outside the region. Alleghany County provides support for floodplain management in the Town of Iron Gate. Alleghany County does maintain a Planning Commission and is a member government of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. Page 223 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-6 5.3 City of Covington The City of Covington is a small city located in the Alleghany Highlands. The City shares strong cultural connections and some infrastructure with Alleghany County and the Town of Clifton Forge. Population in the City of Covington was 5,671 in 2023 and is expected to fall to 5,434 in 2030. The median age is 41.5. Median household income is low at $45,737. The City provides water and sewer to residents. Budget and Staffing Characteristics The statewide Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures shows the following general information about the City of Covington’s real budget for the year 2024. The City of Covington has a small staff. The Director of Development Services serves as a Building Official, Community Planner, and Zoning Administrator. The Director of Public Safety also serves as Chief of Police and primary Emergency Management response. Covington is a small locality, whose employees generally wear many hats. Funding is a large barrier to the City in expending mitigation efforts. Hazard mitigation grants were uplifted as a main source of funding for mitigation activities. Additional funding sources for mitigation activities include CIP allocations, utility fees, a stormwater utility fee, and other state funding programs. Federal funding, either direct funding or pass-through from the state government, is about 13 percent of the City’s revenue. Table 51: City of Covington Budget 2024 City of Covington Budget 2024 Population 5,567 Per Capita $ 3,891.89 Percent of Revenue 67.23% From the Commonwealth $ 6,405,092.00 Federal Pass-thru $ 1,170,444.00 Per Capita $ 210.25 Percent of Revenue 3.63% Per Capita $ 536.00 Percent of Revenue 9.26% Total Federal Vulnerability $ 4,154,366.00 Total Revenue $ 32,225,593.00 Non Revenue Receipts $ 2,233,967.00 Transfers from Other Funds Total Sources Available $ 34,459,560.00 Page 224 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-7 Plans and Planning Schedules The City of Covington maintains a Capital Improvements Plan, a Continuity of Operations and Local Emergency Operations Plan, a Stormwater Management Plan and an Economic Development Plan. The Emergency Operations Plan was updated in November 2023. The Stormwater Management Plan was updated in March 2025. A Resilience Plan is in development which will directly affect flooding and flood response in the City. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms Chapter 18 – Environment of the City Code addresses Erosion and Sediment Control in compliance with Code of Virginia § 10.1-560 et seq. Chapter 19 – Stormwater Management, adopted pursuant to Code of Virginia, § 62.1-44.15:24 et seq., addresses specific stormwater management regulations. Chapter 20 – Fire Prevention and Protection; Emergency Medical Services designates the city fire department and emergency medical services departments as integral to the safety program of the city and additionally establishes open-air fire restrictions and regulations. Appendix A addresses Subdivision regulations and Appendix B addresses Zoning. Article XIII-A of Appendix B specifically establishes Floodplain Districts for the City, adopting the FIRM provided by FEMA (effective date of December 17, 2010). NFIP Compliance The NFIP program within the City of Covington is maintained by Development Services. The Development Services Director is the primary NFIP administrator. He was formerly certified, but his certification has lapsed. The Development Services Director also serves as the building administrator and zoning administrator, as discussed earlier in this section. Besides staff capacity, one of the barriers to running an effective NFIP program within this jurisdiction is community interest. The City of Covington entered the NFIP in 1979. Since that time they have paid out 179 claims at $1,904,162. There are five known repetitive or severe repetitive loss structures in the community. Dam Safety There are three dams in that could impact the City of Covington. These are the Gathright Dam (owned and maintained by US Army Corps of Engineers), Pond Lick Branch Dam (privately owned) and Mead Westvaco #2 Fly Ash Lagoon Dam (owned and maintained by Mead Westvaco). These dams are not located within the City boundary and so do not fall under the City’s jurisdiction. Other Factors The City of Covington engages in mutual aid agreements and joint planning and service provision efforts with Alleghany County. The City utilizes open source precipitation and water level gauges through water.gov, as well as a staff gauge posted at the Main St. Park. Page 225 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-8 The City does maintain a Planning Commission and is a member government of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. Page 226 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-9 5.4 Town of Clifton Forge The Town of Clifton Forge, formerly the City of Clifton Forge, is an incorporated town within the boundaries of Alleghany County. The population of the Town was 3,483 in 2023. Population projections are not available in the data collected for this plan. The median age is the highest in data available for the planning region at 53.5 years. No separate median household income is available. The Town engages in utility service provision of water and sewer. Budget and Staffing Characteristics No budget information was available in the statewide Comparative Report. However, the approved 2025 budget provides some context for Clifton Forge’s revenues and resources. Numbers provided may lack some of the nuance available in the state audit document. Clifton Forge staffs a Community Planner and an Emergency Manager. The current floodplain administrator is the Director of Community Development. Table 52: Adopted Budget Town of Clifton Forge, 2025 Town of Clifton Forge Budget 2025 Projected Population 3,483 Local Revenue $ 2,672,548.00 Per Capita $ 767.31 Percent of Revenue 47.61% From the Commonwealth $ 2,340,613.00 Direct Federal Aid $ 600,000.00 Per Capita $ 172.27 Percent of Revenue 10.69% Plans and Planning Schedules Clifton Forge maintains a Comprehensive Plan, a Land Use Plan, and a Local Emergency Operations Plan. The Emergency Operations Plan is the most relevant to hazard mitigation, and was last updated in 2023. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms Chapter 50 – Fire Prevention and Protection establishes rules around open burning and the acquisition and use of explosives and fireworks. Appendix A – Subdivision Ordinance and Appendix B- Zoning contain information guiding new development in the town. Article 5 of Appendix B, Floodplain Overlay District, formally adopts floodplain regulations and the FIRM (effective date of December 17, 2010). Page 227 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-10 NFIP Compliance An NFIP worksheet was not developed for the Town, so further details of the NFIP program could not be provided. Dam Safety There are three dams in that could impact the Town of Clifton Forge. These are the Smith Creek Dam, Gathright Dam, and Douthat Lake Dam. The Smith Creek dam, along with the associated Smith Creek Reservoir is owned and maintained by the Town of Clifton Forge and serves as the water supply for the Town of Clifton Forge, portions of Alleghany County, and the Town of Iron Gate. The Town of Clifton Forge is responsible for the maintenance of the Smith Creek Dam. After the dam was transferred to the Town, repairs were made and completed in early 2021. The dam and reservoir are routinely maintained and inspected by water plant staff as well as being inspected annually per dam safety regulations enforced by DCR. The other two dams are outside of the town boundary and fall within the geography of Alleghany County. Other Factors The Town of Clifton Forge engages in collective operations with Alleghany County and Covington regarding regional branding, tourism, and economic development. The Town also provides water to portions of Alleghany County. The Town does maintain a planning commission and is a member government of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. Page 228 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-11 5.5 Botetourt County Botetourt County has been one of the fastest growing localities in the region over the last decade. The southern half of the locality has experienced significant development pressure in this time. The northern half of the locality is still largely rural, with strong cultural ties to the Alleghany Highlands. The population in 2023 was 33,875 and is projected to fall to 33,556 by 2030. Median age is 48.1 and median household income is the second highest in the region at $77,680. Botetourt County does not maintain an MS4 permit. Utility service provision for water and sewer is handled by the Western Virginia Water Authority or private community providers. Budget and Staffing Characteristics State data is available regarding Botetourt’s revenue in 2024. Botetourt is one of the least vulnerable to federal funding fluctuations, with only a little under 11 percent of revenue from federal sources. The majority of Botetourt’s revenue is generated locally, at 54.5 percent. Botetourt staffs a Certified Building Official, Community Planner, Emergency Manager, and Floodplain Administrator. The Community Development Department contains multiple staff positions, including several planners, building inspectors, a code enforcement officer, a combined Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Inspector and a separate Administrator, and others. Botetourt’s emergency management response is supplemented by a robust volunteer fire and EMS organization. Table 53: Botetourt County Budget, 2024 Botetourt County Budget 2024 Population 33,466 Per Capita $ 2,265.54 Percent of Revenue 54.50% From the Commonwealth $ 48,166,729.00 Federal Pass-thru $ 10,085,282.00 Per Capita $ 301.36 Percent of Revenue 7.25% Per Capita $ 150.77 Percent of Revenue 3.63% Total Federal Vulnerability $ 15,131,027.00 Total Revenue $ 139,116,476.00 Non Revenue Receipts Transfers from Other Funds Total Sources Available $ 139,116,476.00 Page 229 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-12 Plans and Planning Schedules Botetourt maintains a Capital Improvements Plan and a Comprehensive Plan. A Local Emergency Operations Plan directly addresses hazards and was last updated in 2017. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms Multiple sections of Botetourt’s code may affect mitigation activities and disaster response. Chapter 8.5 – Drainage and Flood Control creates rules for impounding structures that control runoff on a site. Chapter 10 – Erosion and Sediment Control; Stormwater Management allows for local compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law of the Code of Virginia. The County adopted its most current E&S ordinance in 2024. The towns of Buchanan, Fincastle and Troutville utilize Botetourt County’s E&S staff for erosion and sediment control monitoring. Chapter 11 – Fire Prevention and Protection addresses the coordinated fire and EMS system and brush burning. Chapter 21 – Subdivisions establishes subdivision regulations. Chapter 25 – Zoning addresses various zoning rules for the County, including establishing a Flood Hazard Overlay District based on the FIRM to bring the county in compliance with the NFIP. NFIP Compliance The Director of Community Development is the primary administrator of the NFIP in Botetourt County, and is a Certified Floodplain Manager. The county also maintains a retainer contract with an organization to assist in administrative functions. Like all rural, growing communities, the County has difficulty maintaining budget and staff. Their success in NFIP is due to the dedication of existing staff performing multiple auxiliary functions. Botetourt County entered the NFIP in 1978. Since that time, 182 claims have been paid out in the County, totaling $3,563,445. There are 1,752 structures exposed to flood risk in the community. Twenty-eight are repetitive loss and six are severe repetitive loss. The community does not participate in CRS. There were 137 NFIP policies in force in the County (including the towns of Buchanan, Fincastle and Troutville) as of July 2025. The boundaries of the floodplain district for the County are established as shown on the FIRM (effective date of December 17, 2010). Dam Safety Botetourt County adopted a Drainage and Flood Control Ordinance in 1987. Division 2 Dam Safety, in Sec. 8.5-31 addresses issues concerning impoundment construction, inspection and maintenance stating “No one shall have a right to build or maintain an impoundment structure which unreasonably threatens the life or property of another. The [county] administrator shall cause safety inspections to be made of impounding structures on such schedule, as he deems appropriate. The time of the initial inspection and the frequency of reinspection shall be established depending on such factors as the condition of the structure and its size, type, location and downstream hazard potential. The owners of impounding structures found to have Page 230 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-13 deficiencies which could threaten life or property if uncorrected, shall take the corrective actions needed to remove such deficiencies within the time limits established by this article, or if no time limit is established, within a reasonable time.” There are five dams of significance in Botetourt County. These are the Blue Ridge Estates Dam on Laymantown Creek, Carvin Cove Dam on Carvin Creek, Orchard Lake Dam on Glade Creek, Rainbow Forest Dam on Laymantown Creek and Greenfield dam on an unnamed creek. Botetourt staff regularly reaches out to dam owners. Gathright Dam, located on the Jackson River in Alleghany County, was completed in 1979 and is operated for flood control of the Jackson and James Rivers. The facility is managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The dam controls the runoff from a 345 square mile drainage area and reduces the effects of flooding along the Jackson and James Rivers. The Corps of Engineers estimates that the project has prevented more than $70 million in flood damages. The James River passes through the northern part of Botetourt County and impacts the communities of Eagle Rock and Glen Wilton and the Town of Buchanan. Other Factors Botetourt contains several Towns, which are further discussed in the following sections, and works collaboratively with them to support their development when possible. Botetourt County is a member government of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission and the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization. They are one of only two attainment counties in the Appalachian Regional Commission service area. Botetourt County has experienced some turnover challenges in the past few years, which is fairly consistent with other governments in the area. The County does maintain a planning commission, as well as a public relations position on staff. Page 231 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-14 5.6 Town of Buchanan The Town of Buchanan is a small, incorporated town within Botetourt County located on the James River. Buchanan is an important tourist hub for Botetourt County. The Town provides water and sewer service to residents. Budget and Staffing Characteristics The Town maintains four staff positions currently. The Town Manager acts as the floodplain administrator for the Town and is the most likely to participate directly in mitigation planning. The Town is too small to participate in the statewide audit document, but a proposed budget for FY2025 is available on the website24F 25. The General Fund shows a balance of $903,351. $65,610 comes from the Commonwealth. Total revenues including water and sewer service fees are a little over $2 million. Plans and Planning Schedules The Town maintains a Comprehensive Plan which is in the process of being updated. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms Article II of Appendix A of the Code of the Town addresses Zoning, with Sec. 201 establishing a Flood Hazard Overlay District to maintain participation in the NFIP. Chapter 7 – Erosion & Sediment and Chapter 20 – Subdivisions establish additional restrictions on development. NFIP Compliance Botetourt County has adopted a Flood Hazard Overlay District as part of its Zoning Ordinance (2002). The boundaries of the floodplain district are established as shown on the flood boundary and floodway and/or Flood Insurance Rate Maps (effective date of December 17, 2010). The Town of Buchanan has adopted a Floodplain Management Ordinance that requires new residential buildings to be elevated to or above the base flood elevation. The Town participates in the NFIP as a consumer of flood insurance for local government infrastructure and is in good standing with the County. The Town of Buchanan uses Botetourt County’s E&S staff for erosion and sediment control monitoring. Other Factors The Town of Buchanan collaborates with Botetourt County on some planning efforts. They are not an official member of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission due to their size, but RVARC does some support work for the Town at the County’s request. The Town does maintain a planning commission. 25 Invalid source specified. Page 232 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-15 5.7 Town of Fincastle The Town of Fincastle is a small town centrally located within Botetourt County and the county seat. While administrative offices for Botetourt County have largely moved out of the Town, it maintains a central position in Botetourt County’s identity. The Town has historically provided water and sewer services; however, those services are now operated by the Western Virginia Water Authority. Budget and Staffing Characteristics The Town of Fincastle maintains a very small staff, including a part-time Town Manager who is charged with the majority of planning activities. The Town’s floodplain administrator is the Mayor. While they are too small to be included in the Comparative Report, a budget for FY2024 is available on the town’s website which details a General Fund of $173,000 and total revenues of $537,700. Plans and Planning Schedules The Town does maintain a Comprehensive Plan, which was last updated in 2021. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms The Town’s Zoning Ordinance is available online, with Sec. 201 establishing a Flood Hazard District to maintain participation in the NFIP. NFIP Compliance Botetourt County has adopted a Flood Hazard Overlay District as part of its Zoning Ordinance (2002). The boundaries of the floodplain district are established as shown on the flood boundary and floodway and/or Flood Insurance Rate Maps (effective date of December 17, 2010). The Town of Fincastle has adopted a Floodplain Management Ordinance that requires new residential buildings to be elevated to or above the base flood elevation. The Town participates in the NFIP as a consumer of flood insurance for local government infrastructure and is in good standing with the County. The Town of Fincastle uses Botetourt County’s E&S staff for erosion and sediment control monitoring. Other Factors The Town of Fincastle holds several critical facilities for Botetourt County, including the courthouse, Fire/EMS administrative offices, and the jail. They are not an official member of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission due to their size, but RVARC does some support work for the Town at the County’s request. The Town maintains a planning commission of seven members, including a Zoning Administrator. Page 233 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-16 5.8 Town of Troutville The Town of Troutville is a small town within Botetourt County. It is located on the southern end of the county, where development pressures are higher, and is an Appalachian Trail community. Town limits are just under one square mile with boundaries including Interstate 81 and the Norfolk Southern Railroad right of way. Troutville provides domestic water via pumped storage system including areas outside of town boundaries. Town population is 468 people. Budget and Staffing Characteristics The Town maintains limited staff, including a volunteer Zoning Administrator, Utility Operator, and Clerk as well as a Facilities and Equipment Manager and Town Attorney. The floodplain administrator is the Utility Operator. The FY26 Town budget for general fund is $187,000.00. Plans and Planning Schedules No plans or planning documents were available on the Town website. The last comprehensive plan was completed in 2010. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms The Town does maintain a Zoning Code and Erosion and Sediment Control regulations. Article XIV of the Zoning Code details the Floodplain Overlay District. NFIP Compliance Botetourt County has adopted a Flood Hazard Overlay District as part of its Zoning Ordinance (2002). The boundaries of the floodplain district are established as shown on the flood boundary and floodway and/or Flood Insurance Rate Maps (effective date of December 17, 2010). The Town of Troutville has adopted a Floodplain Management Ordinance that requires new residential buildings to be elevated to or above the base flood elevation. The Town participates in the NFIP as a consumer of flood insurance for local government infrastructure, and is in good standing with the County. The Town of Troutville uses Botetourt County’s E&S staff for erosion and sediment control monitoring. Other Factors The Town does maintain a planning commission. They are not an official member of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission due to their size, but RVARC does some support work for the Town at the County’s request. Page 234 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-17 5.9 Craig County Craig County is one of the most rural localities in the service area, with a population in 2023 of 4,881 and a projected population of 4,528 by 2030. The median age is 46.1 and the median household income is $66,286. Nearly two thirds of the county is national forest or state parks. Budget and Staffing Characteristics Craig County budget information is available from the statewide Comparative Report for 2024. About 46 percent of revenues received by the County come from the Commonwealth, and 15 percent is direct federal money or federal pass-thru dollars. Craig maintains minimal staffing, with a part time County Administrator serving also as the Zoning Administrator, a Building Official, and an Emergency Management Coordinator. Table 54: Craig County Budget 2024 Craig County Budget 2024 Population 4,855 Local Revenue $ 7,394,865.00 Per Capita $ 1,523.14 Percent of Revenue 39.02% From the Commonwealth $ 8,701,440.00 Federal Pass-thru $ 2,410,413.00 Per Capita $ 496.48 Percent of Revenue 12.72% Per Capita $ 92.02 Total Federal Vulnerability $ 2,857,191.00 Total Revenue $ 18,953,496.00 Non Revenue Receipts Transfers from Other Funds Total Sources Available $ 18,953,496.00 Plans and Planning Schedules The County maintains a Capital Improvements Plan, a Comprehensive Plan which addresses land use, an Emergency Operations Plan and Continuity of Operations Plan. The Emergency Operations Plan specifically addresses hazards and was last updated in 2025. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms Chapter 26 – Fire Prevention and Protection establishes the volunteer fire service and establishes rules for open burning. Page 235 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-18 Chapter 46 – Erosion and Sediment Control regulates land disturbing activities. The Town of New Castle utilizes the E&S Control services of Craig County. Chapter 47 – Stormwater Management addresses required stormwater management plans. Chapter 50 – Floods addresses flood hazard reduction and required elements for the NFIP. Chapter 54 – Subdivisions and Chapter 58 – Zoning address new development in the County and general land use. NFIP Compliance The Building Official is the floodplain administrator in Craig County, and is not certified. Staffing challenges and financial restrictions combined with a low volume of required service are the barriers to running an effective NFIP program. Since 1990, 71 claims have been paid out in the community at $1,271,108. Two hundred and two structures are at flood risk in the community, with six being repetitive loss structures. The community does not participate in CRS. There were 41 NFIP policies in force in the County and two in the Town of New Castle as of July 2025. Dam Safety There are four dams in Craig County. The Mountain Castles Soil and Water Conservation District has responsibility for the operation and maintenance of these dams. The dams are located on Johns Creek, Little Oregon Creek, Mudlick Branch, and Dicks Creek. The dams were constructed during the period of 1966 to 1968 for the purpose of flood control in the Johns Creek watershed. Future work will be occurring to rehabilitate several of these dams. Johns Creek Volunteer Fire Department has observers for each dam when there are high water issues. Craig County staff work regularly with MCSWCD. MCSWCD provided inundation maps for this plan, located in Appendix H. Town of New Castle The Town of New Castle is included in this capabilities assessment despite not having met the criteria for participation in the planning effort. Craig County serves as the planning authority for the Town in hazard mitigation planning. The Town of New Castle is the county seat of Craig County. They are not an active jurisdiction in this plan, but participate through Craig County. The town has one staff person who functions as Town Clerk, Treasurer to the Town Council, and Zoning Administrator. Limited information is available on the Craig County website regarding the Town’s government. No budget information is available. Other Factors The County has participated in the VDEM Flood Intelligence Unit’s flood gauge program. Three water level gauges and two precipitation gauges have been installed in key locations throughout the County. The County receives support from RVARC as a member government and is within the service area for the Appalachian Regional Commission. The boundaries of the floodplain district for the County, including the Town of New Castle, are established as shown on the FIRM maps (effective date of April 2, 2009). Page 236 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-19 Page 237 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-20 5.10 Roanoke County Roanoke County is one of the largest localities by population, with 89,755 residents in 2023 and 100,027 projected in 2030, excluding the population of the Town of Vinton. The development patterns of the County are largely suburban and rural, with some more densely developed areas. The median age is lower than many other localities in the region at 43.7. The median household income is the highest in the region at $80,872. The County encircles the Cities of Roanoke and Salem. The Town of Vinton is located within the County. The County additionally owns and operates the Explore Park, a major regional outdoor recreation facility which is bifurcated by the Roanoke River, other parks potentially impacted by flooding such as Green Hill Park and Wayside, and several miles of the Roanoke River Greenway which are largely in the floodplain. Budget and Staffing Characteristics Data for the county is available in the statewide Comparative Report. Local revenue is over 56 percent of the revenue for the county in 2024. The percentage of federal revenue is low, at less than 9 percent. The County maintains numerous staff, including several community planners, stormwater management staff and engineers, GIS staff, and emergency manager. They are a CRS community. Table 55: Roanoke County Revenues, 2024 Roanoke County Budget 2024 Population 96,519 Local Revenue $ 248,040,326.00 Per Capita $ 2,569.86 Percent of Revenue 56.23% Per Capita $ 1,599.91 Federal Pass-thru $ 30,897,590.00 7.00% Direct Federal Aid $ 7,761,572.00 Total Federal Vulnerability $ 38,659,162.00 Total Revenue $ 441,121,263.00 Non-Revenue Receipts Transfers from Other Funds $ 1,405,682.00 Total Sources Available $ 442,526,945.00 Page 238 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-21 Plans and Planning Schedules The County maintains numerous plans, including a Capital Improvements Plan, a Comprehensive Plan last updated in 2024 which addresses future land use, an Emergency Operations Plan, an Economic Development Plan, an annual update of the Regional Stormwater Management Plan, and other plans and planning documents. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms The County has engaged in a variety of mechanisms to address hazards, including land acquisition, maintaining an up to date building code, adopting the FIRM (effective date of September 28, 2007) and a floodplain overlay, a subdivision ordinance, and a zoning ordinance, all of which are tools that have been used to address hazards. An update was completed in 2025 and is being adopted. Roanoke County has adopted an Erosion & Stormwater Management Ordinance (2025) and Design Manual (2008) that require new residential buildings to be elevated two feet and new commercial buildings one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation. The Stormwater Management Design Manual that specifies acceptable methodologies, design events for a wide variety of facilities, and administrative requirements such as submittal checklists. Appendices provide a wide variety of charts and tables to be used in applying the approved methodologies. The County has a floodplain overlay district, corresponding to areas identified on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by FEMA. Roanoke County also has up to date DFIRMS of all FEMA studied streams. Additionally, the County has adopted regulations for development in areas that contain more than 100 acres of drainage area that require flood studies for elevations of additions or new construction. Roanoke County has adopted a Roanoke River Corridor Conservation and Overlay District. Although primarily designed to protect water quality, it also helps reduce siltation, which in turn protects the channel that is carrying floodwaters. In this overlay district, smaller sites (2,500 square feet in lieu of standard 10,000 square feet minimum) must meet erosion and sediment controls standards. Roanoke County has completed over one mile of stream restoration. Project goals were aimed at reducing streambank erosion, improving channel stability during high flow events, storing flood waters, and supporting aquatic and other life. NFIP Compliance Roanoke County primarily staffs the NFIP program through the twin roles of a Project Engineer and a Floodplain Administrator. Floodplain management is a primary function for staff. They are also a CRS community. Major barriers to running an effective NFIP program include challenges with staffing following disasters to complete tasks in a timely manner. Limited knowledge beyond primary staff member requires that individual to be present or involved with all mitigation activities and disaster response. More training is sought, however, staff time in the face of additional duties remains a challenge. Roanoke County entered the NFIP in 1978. To date 797 claims have been paid out in the community with a total amount of $18,582,734. There were 288 NFIP policies in force in the County as of July 2025. Page 239 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-22 Participating in the Community Rating System is an important program for Roanoke County. The County maintains an established permit process, requires and tracks elevation certificates, and provides public outreach and education. The County is challenged by the investment of financial and staff resources to improve the class in this plan cycle. Dam Safety There are eight regulated dams that could impact properties in Roanoke County: Privately owned Loch Haven Lake Dam located on a tributary of Deer Branch Creek; Appalachian Electric Power owned Niagara Dam located on the Roanoke River; privately owned Orchard Dam on a tributary of Glade Creek; Carvin Cove Reservoir Dam, located on a tributary of the Carvin Creek and owned by the Western Virginia Water Authority, Spring Hollow Reservoir Dam located on a tributary of the Roanoke River and owned by the Western Virginia Water Authority, Montclair Dam and North lakes Dam in the Peters Creek watershed managed by Roanoke City, and Hidden Valley Dam in southwest county managed by Roanoke County. The County of Roanoke Emergency Management Coordinator receives and reviews annual Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) from the Western Virginia Water Authority for the Spring Hollow Reservoir, Carvins Cove Reservoir, Falling Creek, and Beaverdam Creek Dams along with participation in their annual drill, last held in March of 2025. Additionally, American Electric Power (AEP) submits annual Emergency Operations Plan updates for the Niagara Dam and conducts annual drills, with the most recent completed August of 2025. An Annual Drill for Woods End Dam was conducted in December 2025. The County sees an opportunity for regional collaboration around high hazard potential dams, and a need for dam breach inundation mapping for dams which could impact their community. Other Factors and Activities Roanoke County was first designated as a “StormReady” community in 2019 and has successfully maintained this designation through the National Weather Service. The county’s next recertification is scheduled for 2027. The County has strategically deployed three (3) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stream flood sensors and three (3) locally monitored rain gauges to enhance real-time monitoring capabilities. In addition, the County utilizes resources from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including the Water Prediction Center’s forecasts and mapping tools (water.noaa.gov/va) and the NOAA rainfall monitoring system (weather.gov/rainfall). Project Impact Roanoke Valley was a partnership of FEMA, Roanoke County, the cities of Roanoke and Salem and the Town of Vinton to reduce destruction to life and property during disasters through planning and mitigation. The Project Impact Roanoke Valley Steering Committee and its work groups evaluated hazard mitigation needs from 1998 to 2001. The four work groups were: Hazard Mitigation, Public Information and Community Education, Stormwater Management and Partnership and Resource group. The Stormwater Management group was responsible for the preparation of over 1,500 floodplain elevation certificates in the participating localities. The Public Information and Community Education and Partnership and Resource groups met with community organizations, civic groups, businesses and the general public to promote hazard mitigation activities. The Land Use group focused on the how local plans and Page 240 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-23 ordinances relate to hazard mitigation and published Hazard Mitigation through Land Use Planning in 2001. The Hazard Mitigation group addressed flooding, wildfire, meteorological events, and hazardous materials incidents in its report Hazard Analysis. The County provides annual updates on the Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan, which is further discussed in Section 5.14. Roanoke County provides capacity to the Town of Vinton around stormwater issues. The County is a member government of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission and the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization. Water and sewer is provided by the Western Virginia Water Authority. The County is a member of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. Valley Metro serves this locality and they are a member of the Greenway Commission. They have a robust public outreach program and are a member of Roanoke Valley Television. Page 241 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-24 5.11 City of Roanoke The City of Roanoke has the highest population in the region, with a 2023 population of 98,677 and a projected 2030 population of 101,514 per the regional CEDS. The median age is 38, the lowest in the region. The median household income is $51,523, the second to lowest in the region. The City owns and maintains Carvins Cove, a large park which surrounds a key reservoir for water in the Roanoke Valley. The region’s only level 1 trauma center is located within the City. The City is encircled by Roanoke County and adjoined by the City of Salem and Town of Vinton, meaning that many environmental issues are shared between these localities. Budget and Staffing Characteristics Budget information for the City is available most recently in the 2023 publication of the statewide Comparative Report. A little over 46 percent of the City’s revenue is local, with slightly less than 17 percent of the revenue being federal or federal pass-thru dollars. The City maintains a robust stormwater management department, multiple planning staff, and several emergency response professionals, as well as dedicated GIS staff. They are a CRS community in good standing. The City sees an opportunity for increased emergency response training amongst their staff. Table 56: City of Roanoke Revenues 2023 City of Roanoke Budget 2023 Population 99,634 Local Revenue $ 280,458,617.00 Per Capita $ 2,814.89 From the Commonwealth $ 221,242,528.00 36.63% Federal Pass-thru $ 86,449,186.00 Direct Federal Aid $ 15,807,469.00 Per Capita $ 158.66 Percent of Revenue 2.62% Percent of Revenue 16.93% Total Revenue $ 603,957,800.00 Non-Revenue Receipts $ 713,029.00 Transfers from Other Funds $ 1,961,500.00 $ 606,632,329.00 Plans and Planning Schedules The City maintains a variety of plans and planning documents. Many of these are listed in Section 3.4: Flooding. Page 242 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-25 • Comprehensive Plan • Downtown Roanoke Plan (2017) • Urban Forestry Plan • Parks and Recreation Plan • Climate Action Plan • CIP • NFIP Community Rating System Repetitive Loss Area Analysis (2021)* • City of Roanoke Flood Resilience Plan (2023)* • Emergency Operations Basic Plan (2020)* • Peters Creek Watershed Master Plan (2019)* • Tinker Creek and Tributaries Watershed Master Plan (2016)* • Trout Run Watershed Master Plan (2017)* Additionally, they have conducted research into the urban heat island effect, mapping critical hotspots within the City and working with the local Roanoke Memorial Hospital on improving health outcomes for City residents and educating residents on the impacts of heat. Key amongst these plans, the Flood Resilience Plan could be updated to include additional flood mitigation actions. The City is working on a collaborative plan to mitigate wildland fire in multiple park areas throughout the City. The current Substantial Damage Management procedures are being consolidated into an effective plan. They are also in the process of revising the Emergency Operations Plan, which will provide opportunities to include mitigation language. The Debris Management Annex will be revised during the next update to our EOP to include a more circular economy framework. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms The City has a robust ordinance, including most mechanisms allowed in the Commonwealth. The FIRM, with an effective date of September 28, 2007, is adopted in the Floodplain Overlay District (Chapter 36.2 Zoning). An update was completed in 2025 and is being adopted. Additionally, a River and Creek Corridors Overlay District seeks to manage water quality of the numerous streams running through the City. The City has adopted the River and Creek Corridors Overlay District (RCC) to recognize the Roanoke River and its tributaries as valuable water resources in the City and to designate certain areas along their banks as being critical to their protection in order to ensure that such streams and adjacent lands will fulfill their natural functions. Streams have the primary natural functions of conveying storm and ground water, storing floodwater, and supporting aquatic and other life. Vegetated lands adjacent to the stream channel in the drainage basin serve as a buffer to protect the stream system's ability to fulfill its’ natural functions. Primary natural functions of the buffer include protection of water quality by filtering pollutants, provision of storage for floodwaters, and provision of suitable habitats for wildlife. Within the River and Creek Overlay District, riparian buffers shall be established and shall consist of all land adjacent to, and fifty (50) feet landward from, the top of the banks of the Roanoke River or the applicable tributary. Further, riparian buffers shall be retained and maintained if present, and where it does not exist, shall be established and Page 243 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-26 maintained upon any land disturbing activity. To retain ecological functional value, native vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Other sections of the ordinance relevant to this effort include Chapter 11.3: Stormwater Discharge Requirements, Chapter 11.5 Stormwater Utility, Chapter 11.6 Stormwater Management, Chapter 11.7 Erosion and Sediment Control, and Chapter 12 Fire Prevention and Protection. Building regulations, subdivision regulations, and general land use are also provided for in the ordinance. Current zoning standards restrict floodway development to specific permitted uses including agricultural operations, recreational use, botanical gardens, and accessory residential use. Other acceptable floodway uses must be granted by special exception. All floodway development must meet “no-rise” qualifications and all new floodplain development or substantially improved structures must meet the freeboard requirements for elevation or flood-proofing and be within NFIP compliance. After reviewing, the City finds its current zoning and floodplain management ordinance adequate and does not plan to assert stricter permitted uses in the floodway or other flood zones. Enforcing stricter building codes within flood zones can further reduce flood risk by requiring more strict elevation, or floodproofing requirements in the floodplain. The City currently requires 2 feet of freeboard within the regulatory floodplain but otherwise follows the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Current City standards are in line with City’s goals and will update alongside any state level changes. Subdivision ordinance language help to ensure that the threat of flooding is considered and addressed in the planning process. The City’s ordinance language requires that subdivision layouts be consistent with minimizing flood damage and ensuring there are clear and safe evacuation routes during a flood event. It also requires adequate subdivision drainage and locating utilities and facilities in areas subject to minimal flood damage. After review, there are no areas of the subdivision ordinance in regard to floodplains that have been deemed in need of change. Stormwater management regulations, specifically those addressing water quantity, reduce the severity of flooding when applied across the community. These regulations ensure development impacts on stormwater runoff are offset by solutions such as green infrastructure best management practices. The city code follows the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) to address both stormwater quality and quantity, and also employs a stormwater credits program that encourages both residential and commercial properties to employ stormwater best management practices that assists the city in managing stormwater issues. There are no current plans to revise the stormwater management ordinance beyond the state standards. The City of Roanoke has adopted more stringent regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications than promulgated by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board (and any local handbook or publication of the board) for the effective control of soil erosion and sediment deposition to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources. Page 244 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-27 Notable amongst the other localities, the City has designated a Stormwater Utility Fee in 2014 which is used to fund water quality improvements in the region and encourage alternative development practices. These activities have co-benefits to reduce flooding in many cases. Project examples include: • Planning, design, engineering, construction, and debt retirement for new facilities and enlargement or improvement of existing facilities, including the enlargement or improvement of dams, levees, and floodwalls, that serve to control stormwater; • Water Quality Projects including stream restorations and other green infrastructure to reduce pollutants and erosion and to enhance runoff infiltration; • Facility operation and maintenance, including the maintenance of publicly owned stormwater and flood mitigation infrastructure; • Monitoring of stormwater control devices and ambient water quality monitoring; and • Other activities consistent with the state or federal regulations or permits governing stormwater management, including, but not limited to, public education, watershed planning, inspection and enforcement activities, and pollution prevention planning and implementation. • Creation of a Stormwater Utility Flood Mitigation Program as a supplement to nationally competitive FEMA grants. • Outreach and Education on water quality, stream health, floodplain natural functions, flood insurance and substantial damage and substantial improvement requirements. NFIP Compliance The City participates in, and is in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by enforcing floodplain management regulations that meet federal requirements. This program allows property owners to purchase flood insurance from NFIP. As of 2025, there are 385 NFIP policies in force in the City. The Zoning Administrator is the primary responsible staff person for floodplain management, but is not a certified floodplain manager. The City entered the NFIP in 1981. In that time there have been 797 claims at $18,852,734 total. There are 85 repetitive loss properties and 11 severe repetitive loss properties in the City. The City identified land use demands in an urban environment as a primary inhibiting factor for running an effective NFIP program, as well as staff expertise continuity and maintenance. The City of Roanoke entered the CRS program in 1996 and maintains a class 6 rating (20% discount on flood insurance premiums for parcel owners within City limits). Dam Safety Spring Hollow Reservoir Dam, located on a tributary of the Roanoke River and owned by the Western Virginia Water Authority, could impact properties in the City of Roanoke if it failed. Carvins Cove Reservoir Dam, located on a tributary of the Carvins Creek and owned by the Western Virginia Water Authority, could impact properties in the City if it failed. Two other smaller private lakes in the City are designated high hazard by the DCR; Windsor Lake and Spring Lake, both have conducted significant spillway improvements, and owners closely coordinate with the City. Page 245 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-28 The City works work directly with them during storm events and potential flooding impacts that would or could potentially see impacts in on dam structures. Windsor Lake and Spring Valley Lake dams are privately-owned dams located within the City of Roanoke. The emergency communication protocol for both includes notification to City of Roanoke Emergency Management. Windsor Lake Corporation reaches out to Emergency Management annually for communication tests and every three years for a tabletop exercise and revision of their Emergency Action Plan. They have shared a copy of their 2025 plan with the City, as well as GIS shapefiles of inundation extents. A drill at the Windsor Lake Dam occurred on January 3, 2025. City personnel participated as part of testing the notification procedure. A tabletop exercise was conducted on Jun 3, 2025. Spring Valley Lake LLC is due for a revision of their Emergency Action Plan. The last revision of the plan is dated 2013. They conducted a joint evaluation with City of Roanoke Emergency Management after a 2020 emergency event. Other Mitigation Implementation Activities The City continues to maintain open space as recreational areas as well as seeking to expand the open space in the floodplain through acquisition and demolition of highly flood prone structures, then maintaining them as deed restricted parcels. Acquisition, demolition, and open space preservation has been and will continue to be one of the City’s strategies to reduce community flood risk. The City participates in State and Federal grant funding programs to be able to fund these projects. Stream restorations have been a significantly beneficial strategy for flood loss prevention. Stream restorations allow for channel design and streambank stabilization that protects surrounding infrastructure, with the added benefit of renaturalizing the surrounding floodplain. This not only provides flood storage and property protection benefits, but also improves water quality and local habitat. The City plans to continue to seek high priority stream segments and apply for grant funding for projects in those areas. Star City Alerts allows for direct alerting to citizen devices which helps save lives and property by shortening warning times and informing the public during flood events. The City has plans to leverage local stream gauge data to trigger automatic communications through this alerting system. Currently the system has a manual communication chain during flood events. Grant funding is being sought to establish the gauges and software necessary to make this connection happen. The City has a large backlog of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) to improve stormwater drainage throughout problem areas in the City. The CIP project prioritization system now allows the best use of Stormwater Utility funds and awarded grants to upgrade and repair the stormwater drainage system. The City has successfully maintained a consistent flooding outreach program that involves a brochure that goes to all floodplain properties, a flood safety website, social media posts, repetitive loss letters, and hosting a Prepareathon (an event focused on emergency preparedness including flooding preparedness). New projects are always being considered to ensure flood Page 246 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-29 hazard and mitigation information is reaching the community. Outreach projects are typically funded through the City general fund and the Stormwater Utility fund. The City of Roanoke was designated a Storm Ready community in February 2010 by the National Weather Service. The City was certified based on it level of emergency preparedness including: a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations center; development of at least four methods by which weather warnings can be received and disseminated; creation of a system to monitor local weather conditions; conducting community seminars to promote disaster readiness; and development of a formal hazardous weather plan, including spotter training and emergency exercises. An additional benefit of the designation to the residents and business owners in the City is reduced rate for flood insurance. The Stream Hydrology And Rainfall Knowledge System (SHARKS) is a platform that integrates USGS precipitation gauge data as well as stream sensors across the City of Roanoke to show real time stream height and rain data. This facilitates staff understanding and analysis of flooding in real-time events as well as past flood data. The SHARKS system helps inform flood planning, emergency responders, road closures and stormwater projects. The City partners with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to monitor and study local waterways to better understand local water quality dynamics and inform management decisions. Monitoring objectives include: continual stream levels, water temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity. Statistical relationships between sediment and turbidity have been developed at each station in order to estimate sediment loading with the goal of effective management of suspended sediment. In addition, the monitoring data are being used with aquatic insect data to better understand the relationship between hydrology, water quality and aquatic insect health in the City. These monitoring and science efforts support the City’s science-informed watershed management strategy; more information is available at the USGS’ Roanoke Project Site. The City has also partnered with the USGS to install precipitation monitoring gauges in a selected spatial distribution pattern to optimize data capture. This robust precipitation monitoring network can provide many benefits to a variety of stakeholders within the city, including stormwater and other utilities, first responders, educational programs, and others. The monitoring network can provide critical data to aid the management and modeling of the stormwater infrastructure and first responders could utilize the real-time monitoring to better allocate resources during extreme precipitation events. The network could also be used as an outreach tool to educate residents and students about precipitation and potential risks of precipitation and flooding. Project Impact Roanoke Valley was a partnership of FEMA, Roanoke County, the cities of Roanoke and Salem and the Town of Vinton to reduce destruction to life and property during disasters through planning and mitigation. The Project Impact Roanoke Valley Steering Committee and its work groups evaluated hazard mitigation needs from 1998 to 2001. The four work groups were: Hazard Mitigation, Public Information and Community Education, Stormwater Management and Partnership and Resource group. The Stormwater Management group that originated with the Project Impact Roanoke Valley initiative was responsible for the preparation of over 1,500 floodplain elevation certificates. The Public Information and Community Education and Page 247 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-30 Partnership and Resource groups met with community organization, civic groups, businesses and the general public to promote hazard mitigation activities. Other Factors The City identified several factors as potentially inhibiting mitigation activities. State ordinance and national building codes may offer some limitations. Funding for acquiring land may be limited. The loss of multiple federal funding sources will severely impact mitigation efforts. Potential losses include BRIC grants, funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, Community Bloc Grants, and funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These have all been key sources of mitigation funding in the past. The City is a member of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, the Greenway Commission, the Western Virginia Water Authority, Valley Metro, and the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization. They maintain a planning commission and a board of zoning appeals. They have a robust public outreach program and are a member of Roanoke Valley Television. Mitigation-related programming is common in their public outreach. Page 248 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-31 5.12 City of Salem The City of Salem is a small city adjoining the City of Roanoke and encircled by Roanoke County. Route 11, a key transportation corridor, bisects the City and LewisGale hospital, the region’s other major hospital, is located within its boundaries. The City had a population of 25,477 in 2023 with a projected population of 25,519 in 2030. The median age is 40.3, and the median household income is $68,402. Budget and Staffing Characteristics The City staffs several positions, including all relevant positions to mitigation planning. A floodplain administrator, a GIS coordinator, emergency management personnel, building officials and civil engineers, as well as a community planner, are all covered by staff. The Comparative Report shows a low 7 percent federal funding ratio, and local revenue makes up a hearty 61 percent of revenues for the locality. Table 57: City of Salem Revenues 2024 City of Salem Budget 2024 Population 24,985 Per Capita $ 4,025.53 Percent of Revenue 61.27% $ 52,065,597.00 Per Capita $ 2,083.87 Percent of Revenue 31.72% Per Capita $ 220.46 Direct Federal Aid $ 6,003,705.00 3.66% Total Federal Vulnerability $ 11,511,894.00 Total Revenue $ 164,155,327.00 Non-Revenue Receipts $ 720,018.00 Transfers from Other Funds $ 3,305,679.00 Total Sources Available $ 168,181,024.00 Plans and Planning Schedules The City of Salem maintains numerous plans, many of which are listed in section 3.4: Flooding. The Resilience Plan and the Emergency Operations Plan are perhaps most relevant to this effort. The Comprehensive Plan was recently updated in 2025. Page 249 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-32 Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms Chapter 30. – Environment of the City ordinance contains several sections relevant to mitigation planning and emergency response, including Article III. Erosion and Sediment Control and Article IV. Stormwater Management. Chapter 34 – Fire Prevention and Protection deals with hazardous materials, bonfires, and creates the role of a fire marshal. The City of Salem has adopted the regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications promulgated by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board (and any local handbook or publication of the board) for the effective control of soil erosion and sediment deposition to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources. Salem’s ordinance, in addition to referencing the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, states in Section 30-117 that the erosion and sediment control plan must consider “Peak runoff from a ten year or 100-year frequency storm, based on present and future developed conditions …” and “If the watershed is greater than one square mile in area, a peak runoff study of the 100-year frequency storm shall be prepared.” The City of Salem adopted a Floodplain Management Ordinance in 1993 (revised in 2007) that requires new residential buildings to be elevated to a minimum of one foot (1’) above the base flood elevation. The City has a floodplain overlay district corresponding to areas identified on Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps have an effective date of September 28, 2007. An update was completed in 2025 and is being adopted. The City has a Stormwater Management Ordinance that is part of the City Code. It was developed to bring the City into compliance with state laws on stormwater management and is consistent with the statewide Stormwater Management Model Ordinance. Chapter 106 establishes the zoning code, which includes the floodplain overlay district in accordance with the NFIP. An urban forest overlay is also designated as a method to combat urban heat island effect. NFIP Compliance The Director of Community Development is the program administrator for the NFIP. He is floodplain manager certified. There were 252 policies in the community in 2025. Since Salem joined the NFIP in 1978, 592 claims have been paid out in the community at $18,080,710. Flood risk is high in the community, with 2,592 structures at risk. Ninety are repetitive loss structures, with 29 being severe repetitive loss structures. Staff note that the program is understaffed and underfunded – staffing constraints remain a repetitive issue for localities across the region in running an effective NFIP program. Dam Safety Spring Hollow Reservoir Dam, located on a tributary of the Roanoke River and owned by the Western Virginia Water Authority, could impact properties in the City of Salem if it failed. The WVWA is a recognized jurisdiction in this plan. Further information about potential impacts from this dam is available in Appendix H. Other Factors The City stated a desire to improve public awareness around hazards. They stated that their approach to mitigation is proactive and adaptive. Page 250 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-33 The City maintains many of their own utility systems, including their own water and sewer system and some electrical infrastructure. They are a member of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization, and the Greenway Commission. The locality does maintain a planning commission. Valley Metro serves this locality. Page 251 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-34 5.13 Town of Vinton The Town of Vinton is one of the largest towns in the Commonwealth with a 2023 population of 8,038 per the CEDS. Located within Roanoke County, the town also borders the City of Roanoke. The median age is 39.7 making this the second youngest locality in the region. Budget and Staffing Characteristics No budget information is available in the statewide Comparative Report for the past two years. However, the adopted FY2025 budget is available on the Town website.25F 26 The document states FY2023 actual revenues in the General Fund, Capital Fund and Stormwater Fund were $15,756,600. Combined revenue from non-categorical aid, state sales tax, and categorical aid in that year were about 23 percent of the revenues received. Vinton uses this money to, among other things, staff several positions, including several community planners, a code enforcement officer, floodplain manager, and a capital projects manager. Some of these may be collected in one position. Vinton has a relatively small staff compared to some other localities in the region. Plans and Planning Schedules The Town maintains a Capital Improvement Plan (updated annually), Comprehensive Plan last updated in 2025 which also serves as a land use plan, and an Emergency Operations Plan and Continuity of Operations Plan updated in 2022. All of these plans include mitigation actions. They also maintain a transportation plan and an economic development plan. Ordinances and Policy Mechanisms Chapter 79 – Stormwater Management establishes stormwater and erosion and sediment control regulations. Appendix B contains the zoning ordinance, including establishing a Floodplain Overlay District. The Town of Vinton floodplain management regulations were originally adopted in 1982. These regulations are designed as an overlay district and adopted as part of the 1995 Zoning Ordinance. The regulations have been amended subsequently in 2007 and 2014 and comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain regulations. The Floodplain Overlay District applies to properties that have been identified on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as being in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The land area covered by the floodwaters of the base flood is the SFHA. There are two (2) flood zones in the Town: 1. Floodway – The land immediately adjoining the watercourse channel that is the natural conduit for floodwaters; and 2. Special Flood Hazard Area – Any area of land that is susceptible to a one percent (1%) chance of flooding annually. The most recent FIRM for the Town of Vinton was completed on September 28, 2007. An update was completed in 2025 and is being adopted. 26 https://www.vintonva.gov/100/Budgets-Reports Page 252 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-35 The Town’s floodplain management regulations ordinance requires that new residential structures be at least two (2) feet above base flood elevation, and that new non-residential structures be at least one (1) foot above flood elevation. The Town follows Roanoke County’s Combined Erosion & Stormwater Management Ordinance that is part of the County Code. It was developed to bring the County into compliance with state laws on stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control. In addition to using the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Roanoke County publishes a separate Stormwater Management Design Manual that specifies acceptable methodologies, design events for a wide variety of facilities, and administrative requirements such as submittal checklists. Appendices provide a wide variety of charts and tables to be used in applying the approved methodologies. Roanoke County administers the Town of Vinton Erosion and Sediment Control program under the adopted regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications promulgated by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board (and any local handbook or publication of the board) for the effective control of soil erosion and sediment deposition to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources. Such regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications for erosion and sediment control are included in, but not limited to, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, as amended from time to time. In 2025, Erosion and Sediment Control standards, specifications and regulations were adopted under a new joint combined Erosion & Stormwater Management Ordinance Vinton staff note that a complication of implementation of these ordinances is equity. The enforcement of these ordinances inadvertently impact lower-income populations and neighborhoods. NFIP Compliance The Town participates in, and is in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by enforcing floodplain management regulations that meet federal requirements. This program allows property owners to purchase flood insurance from NFIP. There are currently 27 NFIP policies in force in the Town. The Assistant Planning and Zoning Director is responsible for floodplain management in this community and is a Certified Floodplain Manager. One hundred and sixty structures are exposed to flood risk in the community. Three of these are repetitive loss structures. The Midway Community has limited policy coverage but is at risk of flooding. As of October 1, 2016, the Town is one of the few communities in Virginia that have been accepted into the Community Rating System (CRS) program. Due to the continuing efforts of Town administration, every Town of Vinton property owner – residential or commercial – whose property is located within the Special Hazard Flood Area (SHFA), may be eligible for a 10% discount on their annual flood insurance premium due to the Town’s CRS Classification of 8. Relative to CRS requirements, Vinton undertakes the following CRS specific activities, among many others. Page 253 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-36 • Higher Regulatory Standards: Credit is provided for enforcing regulations that require freeboard for new construction and substantial improvement, and local drainage protection. Credit is also provided for the enforcement of building codes, a Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) Classification of 4/3, and regulations administration. • Open Space Preservation: Credit is provided for preserving approximately 20 percent of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as open space and protecting open space land with deed restrictions. Dam Safety Carvins Cove Reservoir Dam, located on a tributary of the Carvin Creek and owned by the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) could impact the western side of the Town of Vinton. Inundation maps for this dam are included in Appendix H. Other Mitigation Activities The Town obtained two FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grant funding in April 1998 and July 2004. Through these two grant programs, 19 properties that were either developed with residential structures or vacant lots located in the SFHA were acquired. Eleven structures that were located in the floodway were demolished and the occupants and/or tenants were relocated from the SFHA and the properties were rezoned to public/open space district. The Town purchased a mobile home park in 2024 using local funds which involved the relocation or demolition of nine manufactured home units that were in the floodway. Additionally, the Town purchased and demolished a single-family residence located in the floodway in March 2025 using local funds. The Town has an overarching goal of continuing to purchase flood prone properties throughout its jurisdiction using a piecemeal strategy by working with current or future homeowners and vacant landholders. In January 2010, the Town of Vinton and Roanoke County entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Operations, Oversight, and Management of the Merged Emergency Communications Center. By the agreement, the Roanoke County Emergency Communications Center shall provide emergency and non-emergency dispatch services for the Town of Vinton, including the Vinton Police Department and the Vinton Public Works Department. Services delivery procedures will be documented in General Orders (GO) Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and Directives, with input provided by the Inter-Agency Operational Team, and the Advisory Board. In partnership with the City of Roanoke, the Town purchased a flood warning system in 2022. Other Factors Increased assistance with grants administration is an opportunity for regional support to Vinton; especially in regards to hazard mitigation grant programs provided by VDEM and DCR. Additionally, less regulations and requirements on federal grants would be helpful in administering the projects that are awarded. Additional grant assistance (especially from State agencies) is the Town’s biggest need in terms of addressing capacity constraints. Page 254 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-37 The Town receives support on stormwater work and some other services through Roanoke County. The Town of Vinton is a member of the Roanoke Valley – Alleghany Regional Commission and the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization. Valley Metro serves this locality and they are a member of the Greenway Commission. The Town is a member of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority and the Western Virginia Water Authority. They have a robust public outreach program and are a member of Roanoke Valley Television. Page 255 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-38 5.14 Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission is the regional planning district commission and the holder of this planning document. The Regional Commission also staffs the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization, which, while not a direct adopter to this plan, is nonetheless a critical organization in providing transportation planning and funding to the region. The Commission engages in planning across a wide variety of planning areas, including rural transportation, alternative transportation and transportation demand management, public health and opioid abatement, housing, water quality and stormwater management, and general technical assistance including comprehensive plan and zoning assistance. Budget and Staffing Characteristics A breakdown of the Regional Commission budget is included below. The Commission does not own public land or levy taxes upon citizens. All revenue comes from organizational dues, individual contracts with locality or regional partners, state appropriations, state grant programs, or federal grant programs and pass-thru dollars. In fact, more than a quarter of the revenue for the Commission is federal or federal pass-thru. The annual workprogram and budget of the Commission and TPO guide the work of the Commission from year-to-year. The Strategic Plan guides the work of the Commission over a five- year period. Page 256 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-39 Table 58: RVARC Budget FY2026 Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission Budget Comparison FY2026 Final Budget 2026 Revenues: Revenues Localities Per Capita Regional Commission $ 400,274 Localities Per Capita TPO $ 35,882 Blueway Funding From Localities $ 11,491 Franklin County for Micro Transit Study $ 35,000 Department of Housing & Community Development $ 114,971 Federal Highway Administration - PL $ 726,273 Virginia Department of Transportation - PL $ 90,784 Federal Highway Administration - SPR $ 58,000 Federal STBG VDOT Glade Creek Funding $ 268,892 Virginia Department Rail & Public Transit, FTA Federal $ 184,682 Virginia Department Rail & Public Transit, FTA State $ 23,085 VA Dept. Rail & Public Transit, RideSolutions (Roanoke) $ 187,696 VA Department Rail & Public Transit Franklin County Micro Transit $ 60,000 City of Roanoke Better Bus Stops $ 79,667 Federal Economic Development Administration $ 80,420 Virginia Department of Forestry $ 8,000 Virginia Department of Environmental Quaility $ 107,754 Virginia Environmental Endowment $ 20,798 Virginia Department of Emergency Management $ 38,619 Appalachian Regional Commission $ 67,614 Appalachian Regional Commission Ready LDD Grant $ 47,000 Mountain Castle Water Conservation District $ 7,000 Southeast Cresent $ 15,000 City of Roanoke Bike Coordination $ 12,000 ARP ACT City of Roanoke Carryover $ 68,327 Department of Health & Human Services-Peer Recovery $ 495,496 City of Roanoke Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority Funds $ 425,000 Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority $ 25,000 Virginia Housing $ 931,569 SERDI Website Administration Contract $ 1,538 RVARC Interest Income $ 40,000 Miscellaneous Income $ 2,500 Sponsorships $ 2,000 Blueway Carryover $ 28,000 Regional Bike Carryover $ 7,412 Total Revenues $ 4,707,744 Page 257 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-40 Plans and Planning Schedules The Regional Commission maintains a variety of regional plans mandated by the federal and state governments, as well as several regional studies and documents which have been generated by local interest. The Commission also staffs the TPO, whose documents will be included in this section. Most relevant to the goals of this plan are the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), the Rural Long Range Transportation Plan (Rural LRTP), and the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy document (CEDS). Together these four documents, in conjunction with this plan, guide significant investment across the region. Schedule of Updates: • CEDS: The CEDS receives an annual review and demographics update, with a full update and revision every 5 years. The last 5-year update was conducted in 2024. • LRTP: The LRTP was last approved in 2023. The next update will begin in 2026. • Rural LRTP: The Rural LRTP was last updated in 2011, and an update is planned to conclude in 2026. • TIP: The TIP is approved every four years. The current TIP covers FFY24-27. Updates will begin on the next TIP in 2026. The Regional Commission has also historically contributed to stormwater collaboration and water quality activities throughout the region which can have direct impact on flood resilience. Specifically, the Regional Commission is currently involved in Chesapeake Bay Watershed Improvement Plan implementation work in partnership with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The Commission also coordinates a regional stormwater advisory group which allows local governments and other entities operating under an MS4 permit to meet and share information and ideas. Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan (1997) All four Roanoke Valley jurisdictions (Roanoke County, Cities of Roanoke and Salem, Town of Vinton) participated in the development of a stormwater management plan that was coordinated through the efforts of the Fifth Planning District Commission (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission). It offers alternative solutions for both flooding and flash flooding problems. These alternatives include clearing stream channels, enlarging drainage openings, constructing regional detention facilities, and flood proofing individual structures. The plan presents a total of 138 individual projects to address flooding in the 16 watersheds. These are ranked in order of priority within each watershed but no overall ranking within the valley is presented. Cost estimates are presented for each project, but neither individual project benefits, nor cumulative benefits are discussed. It would be essential to analyze the benefits of these projects before the plan can be used as a guideline for specific activities. The identified projects would cost a total of $66 million in 2001 dollars, not including land acquisition or efforts to flood proof or move over 2,200 buildings. A formal quantification of the corresponding benefits would go a long way toward justifying this cost, which can initially seem overwhelming to both citizens and community officials. For example, the 1997 plan reports that between 1972 and 1992, floods caused over $200 million in damages in the valley, and resulted in 10 deaths. The plan’s Financing Options Report recommends creation of a regional stormwater utility as a means of funding the identified work. Page 258 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-41 Other Factors The Regional Commission is the primary holder of this plan and issues with capacity or staffing directly affect the ability to update or maintain the document. Historically, the Commission has also been a key partner for small localities in applying for mitigation grant funding, either by providing assistance with the application process or by administering grants. The Commission also serves as an incubator for regional initiatives. Page 259 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-42 5.15 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority is a solid waste management organization serving the Roanoke Valley. Member communities include the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, City of Salem, and Town of Vinton. Budget and Staffing Characteristics The annual revenue for the RVRA totals at $19,116,734 per the adopted FY2026 budget26F 27. They maintain seven administrative staff positions, including a Director of Community Engagement, a Director of Operations, and an Operations Manager. Plans and Planning Schedules The RVRA maintains an annual budget, a Master Plan that functions as the Capital Improvements Plan, a Comprehensive Plan, and a Stormwater Management Plan. The plan was last updated in 2025. Any ordinances that cover solid waste are enacted by localities. RVRA does not have regulatory authority. Other Factors The RVRA is primarily a support agency for response to disasters. They operate critical facilities within the Roanoke Valley. RVRA sees the primary need for mitigation efforts to be better cross- agency engagement. 27 https://www.rvra.net/135/Annual-Budget Page 260 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-43 5.16 Western Virginia Water Authority The Western Virginia Water Authority provides critical water and sewer services and maintains and operates infrastructure for many of the communities within this plan, including the counties of Roanoke, Botetourt, and Craig, the City of Roanoke, and the Towns of New Castle, Fincastle, and Vinton. Budget and Staffing Characteristics The WVWA staffs 309 full-time employees across multiple divisions within the organization. All of the divisions might be directly or indirectly impacted by mitigation work or disaster events. Staff members include those with skills in engineering, emergency management, and GIS. The WVWA revenue in FY2025 was projected at $50.5 million.27F28 Plans and Planning Schedules The WVWA maintains a Master Plan, a Capital Improvements Plan, Emergency Response Plans for their various treatment facilities, and Emergency Actions Plans for High Hazard Potential Dams under their ownership. They are all updated annually, and all include mitigation activities. Ordinances which may impact the operations of the WVWA are controlled by the localities in which they operate. Dam Safety The WVWA operates several dams within the region. Inundation mapping for WVWA-owned dams is available in Appendix H. As a dam owner, WVWA has listed projects in their mitigation action plan specific to dam safety. Other Factors The WVWA is primarily a support agency for response to disasters, but the Authority is the primary maintenance agency for two high hazard potential dams in the region. They operate critical facilities within the region. 28 https://www.westernvawater.org/about-us/financial-documents-reports/annual-budget Page 261 of 362 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-44 [blank] Page 262 of 362 Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies Page | 6-1 Chapter 6. Mitigation Goals and Strategies Goals and strategies are guiding elements which help shape the action plans of the jurisdictions participating in this planning process. Goals and strategies are housed regionally, emphasizing a regional approach highlighting partnership and intentional strategy, representative of all participants. 6.1 Identified Goals Three goals were identified in the planning process. Goals are broad statements allowing for establishment of tailored, focused strategy. These are aspirational, vision statements that guide implementation efforts. Goal 1 Minimize the loss of life, structures and critical infrastructure during a disaster, as well as reduce risk to the built environment and natural resources. Goal 2 Minimize the economic impact to communities and the region in the wake of disaster Goal 3 Minimize impacts to social systems and community resources following disaster. Page 263 of 362 Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies Page | 6-2 6.2 Regional Strategies Strategies are conceptual statements wherein projects can be developed, detailed and executed. In applying mitigation strategies to the region and participants, a wide range of activities were considered in order to achieve the goals and to lessen the vulnerability of the area to the impact of natural hazards. Goals are pursued regardless of financial resources. However, advancement of identified strategies is largely contingent upon meaningful, sustainable projects relying on availability and timeliness of non-local funding from a variety of partners and sources. Strategies are generally organized conceptually around five areas of work, which are: 1. Local Plans and Regulations 2. Structure and Infrastructure Projects 3. Natural Systems Protection and Nature-Based Solutions 4. Education and Awareness Programs 5. Community Safety and Partner Efforts Strategies were developed by jurisdictions in partnership with VDEM staff. 6.3 All Hazards Local Plans and Regulations 1. Support local development codes that promote disaster resiliency. 2. Support robust, deliberate emergency operations planning. 3. Pursue opportunities to study, research and plan to build resiliency throughout communities based on hazard data, new research and concepts. This could include risk and vulnerability assessments, operational assessments among others. Structure and Infrastructure Projects 4. Equip and maintain critical facilities and resources with redundant power resources, such as generators, hookups/quick connects, and battery/solar backups. 5. Assess and develop where practical, loan, grant, or similar programs to support increased resilience of privately owned facilities, structures and property. 6. Seek opportunities to build resiliency within utilities to reduce impact from all- hazards. 7. Develop redundancy in water sources and water distribution systems. 8. Establish, sustain and develop dam maintenance and replacement programs to ensure dam safety, access to water sources and sustainment of natural recreation areas. Natural Systems Protection and Nature-based Solutions 9. Integrate regional environmental and natural resources preservation efforts with hazard mitigation planning. Education and Awareness Programs 10. Pursue educational programs and outreach activities that promote individual, family and business safety and resiliency 11. Provide planning resources tailored to business continuity. Page 264 of 362 Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies Page | 6-3 12. Make home safety and individual preparedness resources available to community members 13. Participate in special outreach/awareness programs and activities. 14. Seek opportunities to communicate effectively across multiple methods with the public well in advance of disaster to communicate forecast and preliminary action steps, including the use of social media and non-emergency alert systems. Ensure capability to speak with vulnerable communities including non-English speaking community members and individuals with access and function needs. Community Safety and Partner Efforts 15. Participate, seek or maintain certification as a “Storm Ready” Community with the National Weather Service. 16. Improve region-wide interoperability across radio systems. 17. Improve citizen access to emergency reporting mechanisms including but not limited to 911 and post disaster recovery tools. 18. Pursue, sustain and develop emergency alerting tools that allow emergency services to alert members of the community through a variety of methods, to impending emergency, particularly mass notifications systems. 19. Develop, resource and sustain locations, physical and virtual, where whole of government and community partners may coordinate to respond to the impacts of hazards. 20. Conduct resiliency assessments of public facilities with an emphasis on critical infrastructure and utilities. 21. Undertake deliberate research, planning and effort to develop comprehensive, compliant and innovative debris management programs following all hazards disasters that generate manageable debris. 22. Support the development of weather reading and monitoring equipment to increase situational awareness, alert and warning. 23. Support the development and sustainment of Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) within localities. 24. Support the maintenance and expansion of locality sheltering locations and resources. 25. Develop, sustain and support capabilities to shelter pets during disaster. 26. Resource capabilities related to assisting special needs and vulnerable populations. 27. Develop, sustain and support capabilities to conduct family reunification and assistance. 28. Engage partners to share capability and situation information, pre, during and post disaster. 29. Develop capabilities to conduct multi-jurisdiction sheltering when applicable. 30. Regularly train first responders, coordinate with regional partners, and ensure clear post-disaster communication and recovery. Page 265 of 362 Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies Page | 6-4 6.4 Earthquake Education and Awareness Programs 1. Conduct public information activities such as the “Great Shakeout” to provide individuals with tactics to take when earthquakes strike. Community Safety and Partner Efforts 2. Engage with subject matter experts to understand the scope and risk to facilities and life as a result of an earthquake. 3. Develop “critical area” maps based on geotechnical information to identify locations where damage potential could be high. 4. Engage partners to share capability information. 6.5 Extreme Temperature Local Plans and Regulations 1. Plan to develop adaptation features to build individual, community and infrastructure resilience. Structure and Infrastructure Projects 2. Identify vulnerable structures and implement infrastructure retrofit projects to include measures that reduce risk to existing utility systems. 3. Consider use of reflective roof coatings, radiant barriers and other tactics to mitigate heat interaction with structures. Natural Systems Protection and Nature-based Solutions 4. Increase urban tree cover to mitigate heat island effect. Education and Awareness Programs 5. Inform community members of the danger of extreme temperature and provide resources through multiple methods, such as NWS HeatRisk. Community Safety and Partner Efforts 6. Identify locations and partnerships that create opportunity for community members to seek reprieve from extreme temperatures. Page 266 of 362 Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies Page | 6-5 6.6 Flooding Local Plans and Regulations 1. Encourage a comprehensive approach to floodplain management 2. Support programs that update FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Consider participation in FEMA’s Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) program that establishes partners with local jurisdictions to develop and maintain up-to-date flood maps. 3. Participate in FEMA’s Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) program. 4. Support FIRM remapping projects that address flood prone areas in the region 5. Maintain an accurate database and map of repetitive loss properties a. Localities will work with RVARC, VDEM and FEMA to update list of repetitive loss properties annually. b. Localities will obtain updated list of repetitive loss properties annually from VDEM/FEMA. c. Localities will review property addresses for accuracy and make necessary corrections. d. Localities will determine if and by what means each property has been mitigated. e. Localities will map properties to show general site locations (not parcel specific in order to maintain anonymity of the property owners). f. Localities will determine if properties have been mitigated and inform FEMA/VDEM through submission of an updated list/database and mapping. 6. Participate in, and remain in good standing with the NFIP, in accordance with NFIP regulatory requirements including: a. Adoption of the NFIP minimum floodplain management criteria via local regulation; b. Adoption of the latest effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), when applicable; c. Implementation and enforcement of local floodplain management regulations to regulate and permit development in SFHAs; d. Appointment of a designee or organization to implement the commitments and requirements of the NFIP; e. Implementation of the substantial improvement/damage provisions of their floodplain management regulations after an event, as applicable. 7. Strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the NFIP through participation in relevant programs, such as the Community Rating System. 8. Work to reduce flood damage to insurable property. 9. Develop, support and sustain Stormwater Management Plans, such as the Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Master Plan. a. Explore the number of watersheds studied in the Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Master Plan, consider expanding the number of inclusions as appropriate and develop watershed plans for each. Structure and Infrastructure Projects 10. In cooperation with local governments, utilize GIS tools to inventory at risk infrastructure and public and private structures within flood prone areas. Page 267 of 362 Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies Page | 6-6 11. Support local and state transportation projects that call for improved ditching, replacement of inadequate and undersized culverts, enlargements of bridge openings, drainage piping and other physical work needed to minimize flooding. 12. Pursue the acquisition of residential and commercial property in floodplains with an emphasis on repetitive loss properties. 13. Support structural elevation projects where buildings can be safely elevated to avoid loss or damage during flood events. 14. Seek opportunities to floodproof structures. 15. Pursue acquisition of elevation certificates for flood prone properties. Natural Systems Protection and Nature-based Solutions 16. Consider seeking funding to prepare site-specific hydrologic and hydraulic studies that look at areas that have chronic and repetitive flooding problems. 17. Consider increasing conveyance standard to handle more intense precipitation, while avoiding streambank erosion. 18. Pursue opportunities to utilize pervious hard surfaces when possible. 19. Pursue opportunities to stabilize soil along river, creek and stream banks to prevent undercutting roads and other facilities. 20. Promote green infrastructure to prevent flooding, manage excess runoff and increase filtration. 21. Promote the use of green roofs and rainwater harvesting systems 22. Restore and protect riparian areas. 23. Restore waterways that have been covered or buried due to natural conditions. 24. Protect and restore wetlands, forests, and other natural buffers to reduce storm surge and flooding impacts. Education and Awareness Programs 25. Enhance pre-disaster community situational awareness of flood hazards and hazard prone locations, by cooperating with all relevant partners to support a comprehensive public information and education program on all aspects of preparedness related to flooding. Tools such as the FloodView App (2025) provide information and resources supporting this strategy. Community Safety and Partner Efforts 26. Provide early flood warning a. Identify target areas for monitoring, including flood prone areas, streams and rivers to provide advance warning for downstream impacts. b. Identify, acquire and maintain equipment that will perform required monitoring for specific locations and needs. Ensure equipment is appropriately supported and networked to enhance data coordination and empower early warning. c. Configure systems and tools that monitor water levels and flooding conditions to support data and early warning interoperability with organizations that have responsibility to provide alerts, store, and monitor data. Ensure sustainment of these systems and data interoperability. Page 268 of 362 Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies Page | 6-7 6.7 Geologic Hazards Local Plans and Regulations 1. Develop, sustain and enforce, as appropriate, steep slope ordinances/guidelines for development in steep slope/marginal soils areas. Education and Awareness Programs 2. Develop an education and awareness program for home, land and business owners, to inform life and property safety measures on an individual basis, as well as financial considerations associated with geologic hazards. Community Safety and Partner Efforts 3. Encourage the delineation of karst areas and areas susceptible to sinkholes through a cooperative effort with the Virginia Karst Mapping Project, Virginia Speleological Survey, and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (Virginia Cave Board). 4. Encourage the delineation of susceptible areas and different types of landslide hazards at a scale useful for planning and decision-making, led by USGS and State geological surveys. 5. Work with state and Federal agencies to develop data that will assist in reducing and eliminating impacts from landslides. 6.8 Wind Local Plans and Regulations 1. Promote building codes and retrofitting practices that enhance wind resistance for homes, utilities, and critical facilities. Structure and Infrastructure Projects 2. Identify vulnerable structures and implement infrastructure retrofit projects to include measures that reduce risk to existing utility systems. 3. Identify, maintain, and publicize designated tornado shelters, and encourage safe room installation in schools, public buildings, and homes. Natural Systems Protection and Nature-based Solutions 4. Research and install landscape mitigation for strategic planting of trees and hedge rows. 5. Conduct pre-storm tree assessments and pruning to help minimize wind born debris and protect infrastructure. Education and Awareness Programs 6. In cooperation with Federal and State governments, support a comprehensive public information and education program on wind hazards, including straight line winds, tornados and thunderstorm winds. This can be accomplished through regional workshops and educational materials for citizens, business, local staff, and elected officials. Page 269 of 362 Chapter 6: Mitigation Strategies Page | 6-8 7. Strengthen community access to NOAA Weather Radio, mobile alerts, and local emergency notifications to ensure residents receive timely tornado warnings. 8. Support school level preparedness activities including tornado drills. Community Safety and Partner Efforts 9. Strengthen operational coordination relationships with utility providers to coordinate and collaboratively support the community following disaster related impacts. 6.9 Wildfire Structure and Infrastructure Projects 1. Encourage residents and developers to use NFPA Firewise USA TM building design, siting, and materials for construction. 2. Continue to support domestic water line infrastructure into communities who currently operate off well water. Natural Systems Protection and Nature-based Solutions 3. Create Defensible Space – implement perimeters around homes, structures, and critical facilities through the removal or reduction of flammable vegetation. 4. Continue to utilize the Va. Dept. of Forestry “Dry-Hydrant” program to support access to private water sources Community Safety and Partner Efforts 5. Identify buildings or locations vital to the emergency response effort and buildings or locations that, if damaged, would create secondary disasters in forested areas. 6. Encourage VDOF to continue its Community Wildfire Assessments. 6.10 Winter Storm Structure and Infrastructure Projects 1. Implement pavement temperature sensors to increase real-time planning, execution and public information efforts. Page 270 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-1 Chapter 7. Mitigation Action Plans 7.1 Project Development and Prioritization This section contains the mitigation action plans of each participating jurisdiction within the plan. Projects in this section are prioritized as high, medium, or low priority. Prioritization of projects was based on the benefit-to-cost and the strategy’s potential to mitigate the impact from natural hazards in line with long term planning efforts. The anticipated level of cost effectiveness of each measure was a primary consideration when developing the list of proposed projects. Reduced damages over the lifespan of the projects, the benefits, are likely to be greater than the project cost in all cases. Although detailed cost and benefit analysis was not conducted during the mitigation action development process, these factors were of primary concern when prioritizing the proposed projects. Additionally, if a project was already clearly scoped in an existing plan, that project was given higher priority. Consideration was also given to availability of funding, the department or agency responsible for implementation, and the ability of the locality to implement the project. Under each identified project, applicable participant departments will be the lead in making sure that each project or action will be implemented in a timely manner by coordinating with other departments, other participant representatives and/or other regional agencies. The timeline of anticipated project execution is categorized as short, medium, or long term. Short term projects are projects where work is likely to begin in the next two years. Medium term projects are likely to begin within four years. Long term projects are a five year or longer planning horizon, and may carry into future plan iterations. When projects repeat from year to year, this will also be noted. When a project has been completed, canceled, or rescoped the timeline will be noted as none (n/a) excepting when more specific data was collected. Future project tracking will improve under the new annual review process and in future iterations of this document (see Chapter 1). Project status is defined here using the following descriptors: • Complete: Projects from previous years which are completed. • Ongoing: Projects which have been completed but which require maintenance at regular intervals, often annually. • In Progress: Projects currently in progress. • Scoping: Projects undergoing preliminary work necessary to begin implementation. • Not Started: Projects which are scoped but for which work has not begun. • On Hold: Projects currently experiencing blocks or barriers to completion but which are still planned for completion. • Rescoped: Projects which have been rescoped from a previous plan – this is noted predominantly for continuance between the 2019 plan and this document. Rescoped projects may have been moved to the Regional Commission project list when appropriate or been eliminated due to lack of specificity or clarity. • Not Completed: Projects which met unavoidable barriers and which will not be included in future plans. For more information about each locality, including active mitigation programs and ordinances, please see Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment. Page 271 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-2 7.2 Alleghany County The mitigation actions contained in this section also cover mitigation actions for the Town of Iron Gate. Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added Proposed Acquisition of flood prone households from flood hazard areas; reduce repetitive loss; reduce loss of FEMA, VDEM, Local Local government, Engineering & Building 2019 Communication equipment All hazards Improved coordination among jurisdictions; improved response FEMA, Local 2019 residents and developers to use Fire-Wise building design, siting, and materials for Reduction in damages from VDOF, Local 2019 N/A Determine the need for generators at public emergency All Hazards Ensure that emergency facilities can be operational FEMA, Local 2019 N/A Page 272 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-3 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added Proposed Participate in, and remain in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for N/A 2019 N/A Community wildfire wildfire, through collaborative assessments and tailored mitigation VDOF, USFS, 2019 recurring flood problems and request additional stream/rain warning of flooding; ensure that these areas are adequately covered and 2019 Short Term Install Generators at emergency All Hazards Ensure that emergency facilities can be operational CSB, Schools, VDEM Shelter Upgrade Grant, Grantor with an appropriate grant Public Safety, Public Works, General 2025 Short Term Page 273 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-4 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added Proposed Evaluate critical facilities and public utilities for - owned critical facilities and public utilities for retrofitting or flood- proofing to prevent failure during FEMA, Local Public Works/ General 2019 Medium Term Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment and Education All Hazards that result in Hazardous Materials Release Evaluate risk and community safety information for Hazardous Materials Release County, Grantor with an appropriate grant 2025 Long Term warrant site- specific hydrologic and hydraulic studies emphasizing chronic and repetitive flooding Possible determination of solutions to repetitive loss Cost Pending County, Grantor with an appropriate grant Community 2019 Long Term or locations vital to the emergency response effort and buildings or locations that, if damaged, would create secondary disasters in Available inventory of structures that need additional or unique protection from VA Dept. of Forestry, US Forest Service, Local 2019 Long Term Page 274 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-5 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added Proposed Local codes All hazards Review of development codes to evaluate need for changes that would improve disaster FEMA, Local 2019 Long Term participation in FEMA DFIRM of flood hazard areas through sharing of FEMA, Local 2019 N/A Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone roadways for planning purposes (road improvements, limitation of FEMA, VDEM, RVARC, VDOT, Local 2019 N/A accurate database and map of repetitive Identification of repetitive loss properties that Local government, 2019 N/A All hazards Inform public about hazards and FEMA, VDEM, Local 2019 N/A Support FIRM re- mapping projects Flooding Increased accuracy of flood hazard areas through sharing of FEMA, Local 2019 N/A Support Virginia Department of Transportation projects that repair banks to prevent backup, erosion and flooding of existing drainage FEMA, Local government or 2019 N/A Page 275 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-6 7.3 City of Covington Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Added to Proposed Participate in, and remain in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for N/A 2019 N/A Structures - City Pool and Reduced damages City & Local Foundation 2019 2016 Improvements – Craig Avenue and Reduced damages VDEM / FEMA / 2019 2020-22 improvements - West Jackson Reduced damages VDEM/FEMA 2019 2020-22 Improvements - Parrish Court, Marshall Street, and Rayon View Area Reduced damages VDEM/FEMA 2019 2020-22 monitoring equipment to locality water timely information to public works to identify system City, I&I 2025 Short Term Page 276 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-7 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Added to Proposed Mobile Generator Acquisition with Quick Connects All Hazards generating power Continue to operate wastewater pump stations during Development Services/Public 2025 Short Term Add / Replace Generators at Fire Station, City Hall, Emergency All Hazards generating power outage, Extreme Temperatu re facilities and install appropriate generating equipment and controls to allow them to be better utilized during disasters and severe ~$220,000 + City/ Grantor with an appropriate grant Development Services/Public Works/ Emergency 2019 Short Term Joint Communications Center with All Hazards Improved coordination between responders and response records between ~$10,000,0 00 City, County, City PD/Alleghany Public Safety/ Alleghany Sheriff’s 2025 Medium Term Study potential of Landslide on 220 Geologic Prevent impact of Grantor with an Apporpriate Grant 2025 Study former Geologic Mitigate flow in the area that could be the cause of sink City, Grantor with an appropriate grant 2025 Page 277 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-8 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Added to Proposed Drainage Improvements: Chestnut & Monroe ST Flooding Reduced Damage and repair costs; access and response between areas of the City during moderate or greater rainfall $7,000,000 High City, Post Helene Mitigation Development Services/Public Works/ Emergency Management 2025 On Hold Medium Term The upgrading of the present weather terminal at the Covington All Weather timely weather information will allow first responders to make better decision about actions to take, evacuations, and the possibility of flooding and other City, Grantor with an appropriate Emergency 2019 Communications Equipment All Hazards Improved coordination between City, County, and State VDEM/FEMA 2019 n/a Acquisition of flood prone households from flood hazard areas; reduce repetitive loss; reduce loss of FEMA, VDEM, Local Local government, Engineering & Building 2019 n/a accurate database and map of repetitive loss Identification of repetitive loss properties that Local government, 2019 N/A Page 278 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-9 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Added to Proposed Additional Hazard Certificates for residential, business, and critical facilities. Increased accuracy of hazard mitigation VDEM/FEMA 2019 N/A Structure Acquisition - residential and commercial Flooding Removal of structures from flood hazard areas; reduce repetitive loss; reduce the loss of life and property $3,800,000 Medium VDEM/FEMA /Local Govt Local government 2019 Rescoped N/A Public Education All hazards Inform public about hazards and VDEM, Local 2019 N/A Evaluate Public Utilities for Flood Evaluation of public utilities for retrofitting or flood proofing to prevent failures and lessen damages during VDEM/FEMA 2019 N/A Local code and All Hazards Reduction in flood insurance rates; reduction in flood VDEM/FEMA 2019 N/A Page 279 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-10 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Added to Proposed Add/Replace Generators at emergency facilities, public utilities, and City All Hazards Evaluate the facilities and install appropriate generating equipment and controls to allow them to be better utilized during disasters and severe VDEM/FEMA 2019 N/A Add local IFLOWS monitoring and additional stream more timely information to allow faster, more accurate warnings to be issued to the VDEM/FEMA 2019 N/A Page 280 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-11 7.4 Town of Clifton Forge Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Communications Communication Local Government, Police 2019 N/A Participate in, and remain in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flooding Reduction of future flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for property owners N/A High FEMA Local government 2019 COMPLETE N/A Public Education All Hazards Inform public about hazards and mitigation FEMA, Local Local government, Community 2019 N/A need for generators at public emergency facilities All hazards Ensure that emergency facilities can be operational during hazard events $250,000 Medium FEMA, Local government Local government, Public Works 2019 COMPLETE 2013 Local Flood Identify Hazards associated with VA Soil and Water 2019 2014-15 Page 281 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-12 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Communication equipment coordination among jurisdictions; improved FEMA, Local Local government, 2019 Current / Community wildfire assessments Wildfire Reduction of loss to wildfire, through collaborative assessments and tailored mitigation action $25,000 Medium VDOF, USFS, Public Safety Public Safety 2019 In Progress Ongoing Update and Develop Town Specific GIS All- situational awareness related to assets, problem areas and special functions of the $15,000- $25,000 High Local Government, Local Government, 2019 Short Term Local codes development codes to evaluate need for changes that would improve disaster Local government, Community Development, 2019 Short Term Page 282 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-13 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Identify buildings or locations vital to the emergency response effort and buildings or locations that, if damaged, would create secondary disasters in Available inventory of structures that need additional or unique protection from VA Dept. of Forestry, US Forest Service, Local Local government, 2019 Medium Term - wide study Identify Geologic Hazard Areas, and appropriate mitigation Earthquake, Geologic Increased situational awareness and planning Local FEMA, Local Government, Community 2025 Medium Term Water Reservoir Town Water Health, Local Government, VA 2019 Medium Term Stream Bed Identify Repairs RWA, Local Local Government 2019 Long Term Hazardous Materials All Hazards resulting in HAZMAT release awareness and planning capability to decrease loss of life, property and enhance response $15,000- $25,000 High Town, Grantor with an appropriate grant Emergency Services, 2025 Long Term Degree of Urgency Flooding Identify Problem Areas $25,000 Medium Local government Local government 2019 Rescoped N/A Page 283 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-14 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Maintain an accurate database and map of repetitive repetitive loss properties that should be Local government, 2019 N/A with recurring flood problems and request additional IFLOW stream/rain warning of flooding; ensure that these areas are adequately covered and Local Government, 2019 N/A Continue participation in FEMA DFIRM accuracy of flood hazard areas through sharing of local FEMA, Local 2019 N/A Support FIRM re- mapping projects Flooding Increased accuracy of flood hazard areas through sharing of local knowledge Unknown High FEMA, Local government Local government 2019 Rescoped N/A Encourage residents and developers to use Fire-Wise building design, siting, and materials for Reduction in damages from VDOF, Local Local government, 2019 N/A Page 284 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-15 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Support local street projects that minimize and repair banks to prevent backup, erosion and flooding of existing drainage Local government, 2019 N/A Evaluate critical facilities and public utilities critical facilities and public utilities for retrofitting or flood-proofing to prevent FEMA, Local Local government, 2019 N/A Identify Geologic Geologic Hazards, Local Government, Community 2019 N/A Page 285 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-16 7.5 Botetourt County Project Hazard Mitigated Benefit Cost Estimate Priority Funding Partners Implementation/Lead Agency Date Added to Plan Status Proposed Schedule Participate in the “StormReady” All Hazards Community is better prepared through planning and FEMA, VDEM, NWS, local 2025 Community notification system All hazards Reduced loss through improved warning system $55,000 Low FEMA, VDEM, ODP, Local Government Local government, ESC, Sheriff Dept. 2019 COMPLETE Ongoing Obtain more up- to-date and comprehensive GIS system All hazards Increased information for better incident response $350,000 High Local Government Local Government 2019 COMPLETE N/A Participate in, and remain in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance future flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for property N/A 2019 N/A Page 286 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-17 Project Hazard Mitigated Benefit Cost Estimate Priority Funding Partners Implementation/Lead Agency Date Added to Plan Status Proposed Schedule Evaluate critical facilities and public utilities for flood- proofing Flooding Evaluation of critical facilities and public utilities for retrofitting or flood- proofing to prevent failure during disasters, particularly emergency services facilities located in flood hazard FEMA, Local 2019 Short Term Communication equipment All hazards Improved coordination among jurisdictions; improved response FEMA, Local Local government, 2019 Short Term Identification and tracking of special needs All hazards Preparation for assisting special needs populations to prevent loss of life and Local 2019 Short Term Page 287 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-18 Project Hazard Mitigated Benefit Cost Estimate Priority Funding Partners Implementation/Lead Agency Date Added to Plan Status Proposed Schedule Identification and installation of generator quick-connect locations for critical public service facilities, shelter facilities, and other critical All Hazards resulting in power Continuity of critical services during FEMA, 2019 Short Term Obtain portable generators to be used on various infrastructure components as needed during All Hazards resulting in power outage, including deployment of generator to critical infrastructure when power fails to certain facilities, to include mountain Local 2019 Short Term Installation and Maintenance of River and Precipitation of a water and flooding common operating picture supporting early warning and situational awareness Local Government, HMGP: Botetourt County Emergency 2025 Short Term Page 288 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-19 Project Hazard Mitigated Benefit Cost Estimate Priority Funding Partners Implementation/Lead Agency Date Added to Plan Status Proposed Schedule Capital Improvement Project for new Daleville Fire Station/Dispatch All Hazards Creation of a new dispatch center to address new development in Daleville Local 2025 Medium Term Landslide and Geologic Hazards Training for land disturbance Geological Due to increased consequential development in the community and land disturbance, inspectors will have increased perspective and consideration for these types County, Grantor with an appropriate grant Community 2025 Medium Term Development of Sheltering All- Hazards Expand capability to operate shelters within emergency management grant sources as Botetourt County Emergency 2025 Medium Term Page 289 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-20 Project Hazard Mitigated Benefit Cost Estimate Priority Funding Partners Implementation/Lead Agency Date Added to Plan Status Proposed Schedule Construct an Emergency Operations Center for use during disasters to support response and All hazards Allow for central location to coordinate all response and recovery resources during and Local 2019 Long Term Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone flood prone roadways for planning purposes (road improvements, limitation of FEMA, VDEM, RVARC, VDOT, Local 2019 N/A accurate database and map of repetitive of repetitive loss properties that should be Local government, 2019 N/A All Hazards Inform public about hazard mitigation FEMA, VDEM, Local 2019 N/A workshops for tornado drills (public, businesses, and informed about how to protect yourself during Local 2019 N/A Page 290 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-21 Project Hazard Mitigated Benefit Cost Estimate Priority Funding Partners Implementation/Lead Agency Date Added to Plan Status Proposed Schedule Evaluate and Participate in FEMA's Cooperating Technical Partners Continuing updates to flood hazard FEMA, Local 2019 N/A Local codes All Hazards Review of developent codes to evaluate need for changes that would improve disaster FEMA, Local Local governmnet, Emergency Services, 2019 N/A Page 291 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-22 7.6 Town of Buchanan Several projects from the 2019 plan are currently listed as not completed in this document. This is due to staff changes at the Town and County which have resulted in lost progress and information, and to the nature of the projects, which must be executed by VDOT. Towns in Virginia do not own or maintain their own roadways. Project Hazard Mitigated Benefit Priority Added to Plan Evaluate public utilities for floodproofing Flooding Evaluation of public utilities for retrofitting or floodproofing to prevent failure during disasters $10,000 High FEMA, Local government Local government, Public Works Dept 2019 COMPLETE Ongoing Acquire and demolish derelict property in the floodplain through local program Flooding Reduction of derelict structures within the flood plain Unknown Low Town, and Grantor with an appropriate grant program Town Manager 2025 Not Started Long Elevation of the Water St Pump Station, Pump replacement, movement of sewer line under the river Flooding Continuation of sewer service during disasters $1,800,000 High DEQ, Town Town Water System Operator 2025 In Progress Medium Evaluate effectiveness of Flood Wall to protect Lowe Street and Main Street Flooding Elimination of street, business and residential flooding downtown Unknown High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local government 2025 Not Started Short Elevate Parkway Dr from Main St to Quarry Flooding Elevate Parkway Dr. $1,000,000 Medium 2025 Scoping Long Page 292 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-23 Project Hazard Mitigated Benefit Priority Added to Plan grant program Study residential and agricultural property existing in steep slope areas to identify mitigation solutions Geologic Hazards, Wildfire Study landslide, karst and wildfire risk associated with residential and agricultural property existing in steep slope areas to identify mitigation solutions $50,000 Medium Town Manager 2019 Scoping Short Plan Buchanan Library and elementary school as a backup area shelter and POD. Extreme Temperature, Wind, Winter Development of a redundant location for local emergency sheltering $5,000 Medium County Emergency Manager 2025 In Progress Long Identification and installation of generator quick-connect locations for critical public service facilities, shelter facilities, and other critical infrastructure All Hazards resulting in power outage during disasters $200,000 High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Botetourt Co Emergency Management 2019 In Progress Short Participate in, and remain in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flooding Reduction of future flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for property owners $2,500 High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local Government 2019 Rescoped Page 293 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-24 Project Hazard Mitigated Benefit Priority Added to Plan Maintain an accurate database and map of repetitive loss properties Flooding Identification of repetitive loss properties that should be mitigated $2,500 High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local Government 2019 Rescoped Local Code Review All Hazards Review of development codes to evaluate need for changes that would improve disaster mitigation $5,000 High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local Government 2019 Rescoped Identification of appropriate properties for acquisition and/or elevation out of flood area Flooding Reduction of flood loss Unknown Low FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local Government 2019 COMPLETE Public education All Hazards Inform public about hazards and mitigation options $5,000 High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local Government 2019 Rescoped Protection of the Town Sewage Treatment Plan on Parkway Drive Flooding Continuation of sewer service during disasters Unknown High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local Government 2019 Not Completed Protection of the Town Lift Station on Parkway Drive Flooding Continuation of sewer service during disasters Unknown High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local Government 2019 Not Completed Page 294 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-25 Project Hazard Mitigated Benefit Priority Added to Plan Mitigation of culvert at intersection of 19th Street and New Town Road Flooding Elimination of street and business flooding Unknown High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local Government 2019 Not Completed Mitigation of culvert at Main Street and 19th Street Flooding Elimination of street and business flooding Unknown High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local Government 2019 Not Completed Mitigation of culvert between Main Street and Lowe Street near Alley Flooding Elimination of street, business and residential flooding downtown Unknown High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local Government 2019 Not Completed Page 295 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-26 7.7 Town of Fincastle Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added Proposed Procure Trailer Drawn Generator and Install Quick All Hazards generating Power Outage, i.e. Flood, Wind, Winter, Extreme generator to support 2 town wells and the WWTP, upon which quick connects will be installed. Available resource for the Ventilator Dependent Skilled Nursing Facility located within the town, in the event of Town, County, VDEM Hazard Mitigation, FEMA Post Disaster Mitigation Grant Town Manager, County Emergency 2025 In Progress Short Term Evaluate public utilities for floodproofing Flooding Study public utilities for retrofitting or floodproofing to prevent failure during disasters $10,000 High Town, County, Available Grantors with appropriate grant programs, when scope of work is developed Town Council 2025 Scoping Short Term Study vulnerability of the Wastewater Treatment generating power outage, Flooding, Geologic Hazards, Wildfire, Study to determine flood risk, power failure and resiliency, slope stability, road access, defensible space and security measures at Town, County, Available Grantors with appropriate grant programs, when scope of work is 2025 Not Medium Term Page 296 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-27 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added Proposed Study: Stream Bank Restoration- Town Branch Flooding Determine course of action and cost to restore the banks of Town Branch to minimize flooding in the low lying area of VDOT, Available Grantors with appropriate grant programs, when scope of work is 2025 Not Medium Term Local Code codes to evaluate need for changes that would improve disaster FEMA, VDEM, Local 2019 N/A in, and remain in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance Program Reduction of future flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for property FEMA, VDEM, Local 2019 N/A accurate database and map of repetitive loss Identification of repetitive loss properties that should FEMA, VDEM, Local 2019 N/A Page 297 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-28 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added Proposed Identification of appropriate properties for acquisition and/or elevation out FEMA, VDEM, Local 2019 N/A Public hazards and mitigation Local 2019 N/A Page 298 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-29 7.8 Town of Troutville Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Proposed Transfer Switch and Generator Upgrade for All Hazards generating power power for Town Hall, Fire Department, Water Tower, Pump Station, Training Center - Town, County, Grantor with an appropriate grant Town Water 2025 Local Code development codes to evaluate need for changes that would improve disaster Town, County, Grantor with an appropriate grant 2019 Conduct study for public utilities Evaluation of public utilities for retrofitting or floodproofing to prevent failure County, Grantor with an appropriate grant Town Water 2019 Not Stream Restoration in Safe community park area and preservation of Town, County, Grantor with an appropriate grant 2025 Not Page 299 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-30 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Proposed Identify Water Distribution Infrastructure vulnerable to hazardous environmental concerns including extreme cold Extreme temperature and Geologic Identify and prioritize vulnerable infrastructure to prevent customer/system Town, County, Grantor with an appropriate grant Town Water 2025 Not Participate in, and remain in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance future flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for FEMA, VDEM, Local 2019 N/A accurate database and map of repetitive loss Identification of repetitive loss properties that should be FEMA, VDEM, Local 2019 N/A Page 300 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-31 7.9 Craig County The mitigation actions located in this section also cover mitigation actions for the Town of New Castle. Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Added to Proposed Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone critical structures that need additional or unique protection from FEMA, Local 2019 N/A Reverse 911 (Mass Notification)All hazards Reduced loss through improved warning VDEM, local governm Local government, ESC, Sheriff 2019 2020-22 Department of Transportation projects that minimize Clear debris and repair banks along roads to prevent backup, erosion and flooding of existing FEMA, VDEM, 2019 In Progress Ongoing Communicatio n equipment interoperability All hazards, enhanced capability for Wildfire Improved coordination among jurisdictions; improved response times $4,700,000+ High Local Govern ment, US Congres s, General Assembl y Local government, ESC, Sheriff Dept. 2019 In Progress Short Term Page 301 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-32 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Added to Proposed Install generators at communication All hazards resulting in power Redundant power for public safety communications, part Govern ment, US Congres s, General Assembl y ESC In Progress Short Term Install Generator at Shelter- Simmonsville All Hazards requiring shelter/wa rming/cool Resilient shelter and community location in VDEM Shelter Upgrade 2019 In Progress Short Term Safety improvements to Johns Creek dams #1, #2, Protection of life and property downstream FEMA, DCR, USDA, Mountain Castle 2019 In Progress Long Term Downtown New Castle Flooding Flooding Work with VDOT to address downtown stormwater drainage problems $400,000 High FEMA, VDOT, VA DHCD County Administrator and VDOT 2019 Scoping Long Term Identify projects that would mitigate repetitive flooding at properties along Craig’s Reduction of property and community impacts from flooding along Grantors with appropri ate grant program s 2019 Not Medium Term Page 302 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-33 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Added to Proposed Add additional stream and precipitation timely information to allow faster, more accurate warnings to be VDEM / FEMA / 2019 Not and support programs that update FEMA’s Flood Insurance Updated flood hazard Building 2019 Not special section in local newspaper with emergency information on Earthquak e Increased level of knowledge and FEMA, Local 2019 N/A Acquisition of flood prone from flood hazard areas; reduce repetitive loss; reduce loss of life and VDEM, Local governm government, Engineering & Building 2019 N/A Participate in, and remain in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flooding Reduction of future flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for property owners $2,500 High FEMA, VDEM, Local governm ent Local Government 2019 Rescoped N/A Page 303 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-34 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Added to Proposed Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone roadways Flooding Inventory of flood prone roadways for planning purposes (road improvements, limitation of development) $25,000 Medium FEMA, VDEM, RVARC, VDOT, Local governm ent RVARC 2019 Rescoped N/A Community wildfire Reduction of loss to Local governm Local 2019 N/A Page 304 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-35 7.10 Roanoke County Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Added Proposed Publish Public Safety Announcements (PSA) using Multi – Media Outlets with emergency information on Increased level of knowledge and FEMA, government / Roanoke Co Public Information Office & Emergency 2019 Publish Public Safety Announcements (PSA) using Multi- Media Outlets and utilizing practice drills to increase knowledge and impacts risks associated with high winds in business Public informed about how to protect yourself during a tornado in case you are at home, in a car, Mediu m Local governm Local government / Roanoke Co Emergency Management and Participating 2019 Participate in, and remain in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance Program Reduction of future flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for property Unkno wn Local 2019 Page 305 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-36 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Added Proposed Maintain an accurate database and map of repetitive loss properties. Request Identification of repetitive loss properties Unkno wn FEMA, Local government / Roanoke Co Development 2019 Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone critical Available inventory of critical structures that need additional or unique Mediu m FEMA, government / Roanoke Co General Services and Development 2019 Maintain an inventory of flood prone residential properties and repetitive loss Available inventory of repetitive loss properties that could be used for No external Roanoke Co Development 2019 Additional hazard related GIS Increased accuracy of hazard mitigation $100,0 00 USGS, NOAA, FEMA, VDEM, VDOT, Roanoke Co Development Services and 2019 Citizen Warning and Reduced loss through $20,00 0 annuall Mediu m VDEM, Local Govern Roanoke Co Emergency 2019 Page 306 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-37 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Added Proposed Research and consider participating in the National Weather Service “Storm All Weather Community will be better prepared through planning and education Mediu m Local government / Roanoke Co Emergency 2019 N/A Communication equipment Improved coordination among jurisdictions; Unkno wn FEMA, Local governm FEMA, Local 2019 N/A management and floodplain management Up to date hazard related ordinances to provide guidance for planning Unkno wn Local governm Local 2019 2025 Develop and maintain an inventory of flood Inventory of flood prone roadways for planning purposes (road improvements, limitation $25,00 0 Mediu m VDEM, RVARC, VDOT, Local governm RVARC, Roanoke Co Development 2019 In progress Ongoing Support Virginia Department of Transportation projects that Clear debris and repair banks along roads to prevent backup, erosion and flooding of existing varies annuall y, due to work perfor me Mediu m FEMA, VDEM, Roanoke Co Development 2019 In progress Ongoing Page 307 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-38 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Added Proposed Seek funding to prepare site-specific hydrologic and hydraulic studies that look at areas that have chronic and repetitive Possible determination of solutions to repetitive $100,0 00 Mediu m Local governm Roanoke Co Development 2019 In Progress Ongoing Public education All hazards Inform public about hazards and mitigation $50,00 0 VDEM, Local governm Local government, Emergency 2019 In progress Ongoing Participate in special statewide outreach/awareness activities, such as Winter Weather Awareness Week, Flood Awareness Inform public about hazards and mitigation $10,00 0 VDEM, FEMA, Roanoke Co Emergency 2019 In progress Ongoing Upgrade/repairs to stormwater system Flooding Reduce frequency and impact of flooding $10,00 0,000 High FEMA, VDEM, VDOT Roanoke Co Development Services 2019 In progress Ongoing Drainage system banks to prevent backup, erosion and flooding of existing drainage $1,000, 000 annuall FEMA, VDEM, Roanoke Co Development 2019 In progress Ongoing Page 308 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-39 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Added Proposed Identify buildings or locations vital to the emergency response effort and buildings or locations that, if damaged, would add complexity to a response. Apply community wildfire assessments as Available inventory of structures that need additional or unique protection from wildfires. Support property owners in taking mitigation actions such as defensible space, building and siting $80,00 0 Mediu m VA Dept. of Forestry, US Forest Service, Local governm Local government, VDOF, USFS, and Roanoke County Fire & Rescue 2019 In progress Ongoing Repetitive Loss Property Acquisition and Demolition of a Property located in Mitigation of repetitive ~$1,00 FEMA, Roanoke Co Development 2019 Dixie Cavern Landfill Replace aging system to $1,000, 000 Mediu m Partners with Mitigatio n Grants; other relevant develop ment Roanoke Co Development 2025 Identify locations for additional rain, river and stream Provide better, more timely information to allow faster, more accurate warnings to be $25,00 0 Mediu m VDEM / FEMA / LOCAL Local 2019 Not Page 309 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-40 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Added Proposed Develop and maintain damage assessment Knowledge of hazard caused damage for planning and disaster Unkno wn Local 2019 N/A Additional hazard Elevation certificates for residential, business, and critical facilities; increased accuracy of hazard mitigation $75,00 0 FEMA, VDEM, Local Govern Local Government, Engineering 2019 N/A Commercial Structure Removal of structure $15,00 FEMA, Government, Engineering 2019 N/A Identify funding and resources for delineating landslide Geologic Landslide Tool for planning and decision- making; limitation of new $15,00 0 Mediu m VDEM, 2019 N/A ordinance/guideline s for development in steep slope/marginal soils areas Geologic Landslide Tool for planning and decision- making; limitation of new $10,00 0 Mediu m Local 2019 N/A Stormwater facilities Reduce frequency and $15,00 FEMA, Government, Engineering 2019 N/A Stormwater Management Master Plan Flooding Watershed/mitigation planning and project identification $750,0 00 High FEMA, Local governm ent, PDC Local Government, Engineering Department 2019 Rescoped N/A Page 310 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-41 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/Added Proposed Encourage residents and developers to use Fire-Wise building design, siting, and materials Reduction in damages Mediu m VDOF, Local governm Local 2019 N/A Community wildfire Reduction in loss to $25,00 0 Mediu m Local governm VDOF, Local 2019 N/A Page 311 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-42 7.11 City of Roanoke Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/ Added to Proposed Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone critical Available inventory of critical structures that need additional or unique protection government, Stormwater Utility, Emergency 2019 participation in FEMA’s DFIRM Updated flood hazard FEMA, local Local 2019 Assistance Center Plan, Standard Operating Guidelines for Family Assistance Center deployment, and identify staffing needs Supporting government and private employers in Roanoke by developing SOGs to implement Family $0 City & private partner City of Roanoke Emergency Management, City Schools Complete Ongoing Secure grants to purchase and maintain Volunteer Management and Reception Supporting spontaneous volunteers in a Roanoke Valley 2019 Page 312 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-43 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/ Added to Proposed Additional Hazard related Increased accuracy of hazard mitigation USGS, NOAA, FEMA, Government, Stormwater Utility, Department of Technology, Emergency 2019 Star City Alerts (Rave Mobile Safety) All Hazards Reduced loss of life and property through improved warning system. $25,000 High Local Government Local Government, Emergeny Management 2019 Complete Ongoing Maintain an accurate database and map of repetitive Identification of repetitive loss properties that Stormwater 2019 Attain CRS Class 6 insurance rates; reduction in flood government; Stormwater 2025 2021 Operating Guidelines for Volunteer Reception Supporting spontaneous volunteers in a $0 City Emergency City EM, Police Department, Animal Wardens Complete Develop Disaster Pet Sheltering Disaster by developing Community Animal City Emergency City EM & Police 2019 2022 Page 313 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-44 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/ Added to Proposed Structure acquisition Flooding Removal of structures from flood hazard areas; reduce repetitive loss; reduce loss of life and property. $200,000 per year High FEMA, VDEM, Local Government Local government, Stormwater Utility 2019 In progress Ongoing Acquisition of flood prone households from flood hazard areas; reduce repetitive loss; reduce loss of FEMA, VDEM, Local Local government, Stormwater 2019 Inform public about hazards and mitigation options FEMA, VDEM, Local government, Stormwater Utility, Emergency 2019 Upgrade / repairs to storm water Reduce frequency and impact of $140,000,000 High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local 2019 Implementation of Tinker Creek and Tributaries Watershed and sediment transport, reduction of stream bank erosion, increase in water quality Variable $300,000 to VADEQ, potentially Local 2025 Page 314 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-45 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/ Added to Proposed Implementation of Lick Run Watershed and sediment transport, reduction of stream bank erosion, increase in water quality Variable $300,000 to VADEQ, potentially Local 2025 Implementation of Trout Run Watershed and sediment transport, reduction of stream bank erosion, increase in water quality Variable $300,000 to VADEQ, potentially Local 2025 Implementation of Peters Creek Watershed and sediment transport, reduction of stream bank erosion, increase in water quality Variable $300,000 to VADEQ, potentially Local 2025 Watershed Stormwater needs on a per watershed basis with comprehensive modeling and identification of $700,000 per Local Government, Stormwater 2025 Drainage System repair banks to prevent backup, erosion and flooding of existing $500,000 High FEMA, VDEM, Local government Local 2019 Page 315 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-46 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/ Added to Proposed Flood Hazard mapping update / modernization Flooding Increased accuracy of flood maps and more effective regulation and enforcement of regulations. $212,800 High FEMA, VDEM Local government, Stormwater Utility, Planning Division 2019 In progress Short Term Attain CRS Class 5 insurance rates; reduction in flood government; Stormwater 2019 Long Term Sponsor Community efforts to develop resilience hub, by supporting funding Partner identification underway Sustainability and Emergency 2025 Medium Term Develop Crisis Communications establish coordinated public information and warning throughout the incident City, Grantor with an appropriate grant Emergency Management, 2025 Medium Term Develop Heat Resilience Plan Extreme temperature Develop adaptation features to build resiliency $150,000 High City, Grantor with an appropriate grant program Sustainability 2025 Not Started Medium Term Study on power All Hazards generating power Solutioning long term, multi disaster City, Grantor with an appropriate grant Sustainability, Emergency 2019 Long Term Page 316 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-47 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/ Added to Proposed Pavement Temperature Winter Storm, extreme Operational efficiency generating City, USGS, Grantor with an appropriate grant Transportation 2025 Long Term Develop Continuity of Government Increased decision making and coordination City, Grantor with an appropriate grant Emergency Management, 2025 Long Term Elevation Certificate Updates Flooding Once the LOMR is updated as a result of the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project, new elevation certificates along the river corridor may be needed. Unknown Medium Silver Jackets, VDEM, FEMA Local government, Stormwater Utility 2019 On Hold Medium Term Inundation understand what flooding depths will be based on RR stream gauge Silver Jackets, local Stormwater 2019 Medium Term Stream and sediment transport, reduction of stream bank erosion, increase in water quality Variable $300,000 to VADEQ, potentially Local 2019 N/A Page 317 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-48 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/ Added to Proposed Participate in, and remain in good standing with, the National Flood Insurance flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for $0 Local government, Stormwater 2019 N/A Reverse 911 All Hazards Reduced loss of life and property through improved warning system $50,000 High FEMA, VDEM, Local Government Local Government, Emergency Management 2019 Rescoped N/A Participate in insurance rates; reduction in flood government; Stormwater 2019 N/A Stormwater Management Watershed/mitigation planning and project FEMA, local government, Local 2019 N/A Urban GI Lab Flooding Bringing together local partners to increase capacity of local green infrastructure projects to bring long- term water quality and flood reduction benefits No Cost High Earth Economics Stormwater Utility 2019 Not Completed N/A Page 318 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-49 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/ Added to Proposed Resiliency Scorecard All Hazards Assessment of readingess and specific areas of vulnerability to hazards and climate change Unknown High DCR, VDEM, FEMA Stormwater Utility 2019 Not Completed N/A Economic Valuation of development decision making DCR, VDEM, Stormwater 2019 Not N/A Page 319 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-50 7.12 City of Salem Project Hazard Funding Implementation/ Added Proposed Open Drainage system and mitigation of flooding; Clear debris and repair banks to prevent backup, erosion and flooding of existing drainage FEMA, VDEM, City, grantor with app grant Community Development, Street 2019 Closed Stormwater system construction, Reduce frequency and VDEM, City, grantor with app grant Community 2019 Additional hazard for residential, business and critical facilities; increased accuracy of hazard FEMA, VDEM, Local Local government, Community 2019 Mass notification Reduced loss through improved warning N/A N/A FEMA, VDEM, Local Local government, Fire & Emergency Services, Police, IT 2019 N/A Communication equipment Improved coordination among jurisdictions; improved response $1,000,000 to FEMA, Local Local government, Fire & Emergency Services, Police, IT 2019 2018- Page 320 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-51 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/ Added Proposed Defensible Space Wildfire Partner with the Virginia Department of Forestry to mitigate wildfire risk by focusing on fire prevention and creating defensible space. TBD by project Low DOF, Local government Local government, Community Development, Fire & Emergency Services, Streets and General Maintenance 2019 In Progress Ongoing Use HEC GeoRAS, HEC-GeoHMS, or HAZUS software to model potential flood scenarios and identify high-hazard areas Use software to model potential flood areas and identify high risk areas to help mitigate FEMA, VDEM, Local Community 2019 Short Term Revision of floodplain Up to date floodplain and zoning ordinance to provide guidance for with an appropriate grant Local government, Community 2025 Medium Term Participate in FEMA Hazard Mitigation Programs such as FMA, PDM, and HMGP for acquisition of flood prone properties or flood-proofing funding for acquisition/demolition projects, structure elevation, mitigation reconstruction project, flood-proofing critical facilities, flood-proofing commercial structure, infrastructure upgrades, and FEMA, VDEM, Local government, grantor with an appropriate grant Community 2019 Long Term Page 321 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-52 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/ Added Proposed Identify and equip a community resource center Extreme temps, winds, earthquake, winter Provide community space for warming/ cooling and power needs in a disaster $200,000 Medium FEMA, VDEM, City, grantor with an appropriate grant program Fire and EMS 2025 Not Started Medium Term Seek funding to prepare site-specific hydrologic and hydraulic studies that look at areas that have chronic and repetitive Possible determination of solutions to repetitive loss FEMA, VDEM, City, grantor with app grant Community 2019 Not Long Term Reduction in flood insurance rates; grantor with an appropriate grant Community 2019 Long Term accurate database and map of repetitive loss Indentification of repetitive loss properties that should N/A FEMA, Local government, Community 2019 N/A Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone critical Available inventory of critical structures that need additional or unique protection from N/A FEMA, Local government, Community Development, Fire & Emergency 2019 N/A Page 322 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-53 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/ Added Proposed Continue participation in FEMA's DFIRM Updated flood hazard N/A FEMA, Local government, Community 2019 N/A Annual review of floodplain and zoning ordinance to provide guidance for N/A Local government, Community 2019 N/A Application of Ignition-resistant Apply ignition resistant techniques to new or existing structures and N/A FEMA, VDEM, Local Local government, Community Development, Fire&Emergency Services, Streets and General 2019 Not N/A Hazardous Fuels Removal of vegetative fuels in proximity to at- risk structures and N/A FEMA, VDEM, Local Local government, Community Development, Fire&Emergency Services, Streets and General 2019 Not N/A mapping update/ modernization/ Additional hazard related GIS Increased accuracy of flood maps and increased accuracy of hazard mitigation N/A FEMA, 2019 Page 323 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-54 Project Hazard Funding Implementation/ Added Proposed Public education All hazards Develop web application(s) for informing public about hazards and mitigation options Utilize ArcGIS to allow real-time citizen input regarding N/A FEMA, VDEM, Local 2019 Continue headwall and riverbank stabilization to reduce road undercutting in multiple areas as scoping VDEM, Local government CFPF, grantor with app grant 2019 2025- Page 324 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-55 7.13 Town of Vinton Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Maintain an inventory of flood prone residential properties and repetitive loss Available inventory of repetitive loss properties that could be used for planning RVARC, Roanoke County 2019 Implement Mass impending danger. Encourage voluntary use of the National Weather Service or private warning mechanisms, such as The Weather Channel NOTIFY! and the Specific Area Message Encoding RVARC RVARC and Local 2019 N/A informational brochure or handout on Flood Safety in Public better informed VDEM, FEMA, RVARC 2019 N/A Determine the need for generators at public infrastructure facilities, emergency shelters, and public sewer service can be operational during hazard events. Needed services can be provided during FEMA, Local Town of Vinton Public Works and Police 2019 N/A Page 325 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-56 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Local codes review All hazards Review development codes to evaluate need for changes that would improve disaster FEMA, Roanoke County and Town of Town of Vinton Planning 2019 N/A prepare site-specific hydrologic and hydraulic studies that look at areas that have chronic and repetitive Study Gish Mill redevelopment area and Tinker Creek Tributary to determine effective FEMA, VDEM, and RVARC 2019 N/A Flood hazard mapping update/ flood maps and more effective regulation and enforcement of RVARC, County of Roanoke, and Town of 2019 N/A Evaluate public utilities for utilities for retrofitting or floodproofing to prevent FEMA, VDEM, Town of Town of Vinton Public 2019 N/A Communication equipment Improved coordination among jurisdictions; improved resposne FEMA, RVARC, Town of Vinton Emergency Coordinator, Roanoke County/Vinton 2019 N/A Obtain CRS Reduction in flood insurance rates; $10,000, Localities, Town of Town of Vinton Planning 2019 2016 Page 326 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-57 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Continue to enforce steep slope ordinance/guidelines for development in steep slope/marginal Geologic Landslide Tool for planning and decision making; limitation of VDCR, Roanoke County, Town 2019 2016 Property acquisition – single-family and commercial and other structures from flood hazard areas; reduce repetitive loss; reduce loss of life and FEMA, VDEM, Town of Town of Vinton Planning 2019 Short Term Identify locations for additional stream Flooding / Provide better, more timely information to allow faster, more accurate warnings to be Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Grantor with an appropriate Town of Vinton Planning 2019 Short Term Community Wildfire Reduction of loss to RVARC Roanoke County and 2019 Short Term Retrofit and Floodproof Gish Mill Historical Structure Flooding Protect structure and tenants from flooding, improve economic community value $400,000 High Town, Private Developers, Helene Post Disaster Mitigation Town Planning and Zoning Department 2019 In Progress Short Term Town-wide Stormwater facilities Reduce frequency and Vinton, Grantor with Appropriate Grant Town of Vinton Planning 2019 Not Charles R. Hill Community Center Retrofit building with generator and supplies Town, Roanoke Co, Town Emergency 2019 Not Page 327 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-58 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed War Memorial is upgraded appropriate grant program Transportation corridor debris removal and bank banks along roads to prevent backup, erosion and flooding of existing drainage systems. Hardy Rd, Walnut Ave, Virginia Ave, as well as, other roadways as determined by Town, VDOT, Town, VDOT, Roanoke City, Town Planning and 2019 Medium Term use of the National Weather Service or private warning mechanisms, such as The Weather Channel NOTIFY! and the Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME) All Hazards Public able to receive warnings from appropriate sources Unknown High RVARC Localities RVARC and Local government 2019 Rescoped N/A Participate in special statewide outreach/awareness activities such as Winter Weather Awareness Week, Flood Awareness Inform public about hazards and mitigation VDEM, FEMA, NWS, RVARC, RVARC and Local 2019 N/A Reverse 911 improved warning Local Town of Vinton, Roanoke 2019 N/A hazards and mitigation Local 2019 N/A Page 328 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-59 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Additional hazard related GIS Increased accuracy of hazard mitigation FEMA, VDEM, VDOT, VDOF, RVARC, RVARC, County of Roanoke, and Town of 2019 N/A support Community Emergency Response Team Coordinated 2019 N/A Participate in, and remain in good standing with, the flood damage through enforcement of floodplain ordinances and availability of discounted flood insurance for property FEMA, DCR, Town of Vinton and 2019 N/A Develop and maintain an inventory of flood roadways for planning purposes (road improvements, limitation of FEMA, VDEM, RVARC, Local governments, 2019 N/A maintain damage assessment caused damage for planning and disaster 2019 N/A Additional hazard residential, business, and critical facilities, increased accuracy of hazard mitigation FEMA, VDEM, RVARC, Town of Vinton and 2019 N/A Stormwater Master planning and project RVARC, Town of Vinton an other 2019 N/A Page 329 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-60 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Upgrade/repairs to Reduce frequency and Vinton, Grantor with Appropriate Grant Town of Vinton Public 2019 N/A Drainage system banks to prevent backup/erosion/flooding of existing drainage $100,00 FEMA, VDEM, VDOT, Town Town of Vinton Public 2019 N/A resources for delineating landslide Geologic planning and decision making; limitation of VDEM, VDCR, RVARC, 2019 N/A Public education workshops for how to protect themselves from RVARC 2019 N/A and developers to use Fire-Wise building design, siting and materials Reduction in damages VDOF, RVARC Roanoke County and 2019 N/A section in local newspaper with emergency information on earthquakes Earthquake Increased level of knowledge and awareness in citizens $2,500 Low FEMA, VDEM, Local governments RVARC and participating local governments 2019 Not Completed N/A Develop "critical area" maps for Identification of earthquake hazard 2019 Not N/A Page 330 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-61 7.14 Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Identify areas with recurring flood problems and prepare funding scope for additional warning of flooding; ensure that these areas are adequately covered and DHCD, 2019 In Progress Short Term Train staff in hazard mitigation All Hazards Increased staff capacity for 2030 plan update $10,000- $15,000 High RVARC 2025 In Progress Short Term Request additional stream/rain gauges on behalf of interested local warning of flooding; ensure these areas are adequately covered 2019 Short Term temperature data collection in partnership with Extreme Improved data around extreme temperature impacts for 2030 plan VDOF, VDH, RVARC, local 2025 Medium Term Improve Landslide Susceptibility Model by evaluating rain Geologic around geologic hazards, specifically landslides, for 2030 $5,000- $10,000 High VDE, NWS RVARC Scoping Medium Term the Regional Stormwater action items for stormwater $100,000- $150,000 Medium To be 2019 Long Term Page 331 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-62 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Expand assessment of wildfire risk to incorporate new data regarding air quality mortality in partnership with regional health Improved data around wildfire risk and public Regional health partners, 2025 Long Term agencies to improve sinkhole susceptibility data for the region. Geologic Hazards Improved information around geologic hazards, specifically sinkholes. $5,000- $30,000 Low DCR, VDE, VDOT RVARC 2025 Scoping Long Term Improve risk assessment methodologies for special districts and evaluate addition of other special districts as Improved risk assessment in 5-year update and improved stakeholder $20,000- $25,000 Medium VDEM, FEMA, Special 2025 Long Term Regional and Local project progress and implementation tracking and public $5,000- $10,000 High Localities RVARC, localities Not Annual public information and federal communication efforts, and partnership with VDEM, FEMA, Local 2025 Not Page 332 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-63 Project Hazard Cost Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Update the 2005 Flood Prone information about roadway flooding in $10,000- $30,000 High TPO RVARC Not Short Term Vulnerable Facilities Flood Vulnerability Study and action Improved and updated information on the regional impacts to $30,000- $60,000 Medium TPO, other RVARC Not Medium Term home and RV park locations in the Improved wind model $10,000- $20,000 High RVARC Not Medium Term Regional Transit Flooding, Winter Improved information around transit impacts $40,000 - $80,000 Low TPO RVARC Not Medium Term vulnerable facilities that lack generators and incorporate list into future project Wind, Winter Storm, Extreme Improved information regarding electric generator needs $10,000- $15,000 Medium VDEM, Local 2025 Not Medium Term regional database of repetitive loss Improved information $5,000- $10,000 High FEMA, VDEM RVARC On Hold Short Term Substantial Damage/Substantial Improvement Improved regional $2,000- $5,0000 Medium VDEM, FEMA, Local 2025 Short Term Page 333 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-64 7.15 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Project Hazard Cost Benefit-Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Increase relationships with service area jurisdictions All- Hazards RVRA has significant relationships across the operational region, both contractually and organizationally and seeks to share resource information, capability and contribute to regional public $0 All localities and partners within service district on a case by RVRA Executive 2025 In Progress Ongoing Implement 2 trailer drawn emergency generators to support 2 pump stations primarily, with flexibility to support All Hazards that result in power outage: Wind, Winter, Keep pump stations operational during power outage: protection of illicit discharge to VA waters. Trailer mounted set-up provides flexibility for other internal Sourcing FEMA Post Disaster Mitigation RVRA- Dir. Of Operations/ Operations 2025 In Progress Short Term Page 334 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-65 Project Hazard Cost Benefit-Funding Implementation/Lead Added to Proposed Leachate Bypass Pump Station and Tank capacity, protection of pumps, improved pump out capacity through efficiency gains. Builds resiliency and prevents system from being overrun Sourcing FEMA Post Disaster Mitigation RVRA- Dir of Operations/ Operations 2025 In Progress Short Term Haul Road Flooding, Geologic Hazards, Study of a critical access road, along with several state roads leading to the area. This area experiences routine short term and occasional long term flooding. The area is at risk for karst events and runs alongside a Unknown, pending development of a scope of Seeking grant funding that would be applicable. This could be from any RVRA Executive 2025 Not Long Term Page 335 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-66 7.16 Western Virginia Water Authority Project Hazard Cost Benefit -to-Funding Implementation/Lea Adde d to Propose d Identify distribution infrastructure vulnerable to hazardous environmenta l concerns including extreme cold and geologic Extreme Temperature , Geologic Identify and prioritize vulnerable infrastructure to prevent customer/syste Routine effort. Cost WVWA, Grantor with an appropriat e grant WVWA Engineering 2025 In Progres s Identify critical facilities within WVWA Network to install generators All Hazards resulting in power outage Promote resiliency of water distribution system during power outages $5,000,00 0 Medium High WVWA, Grantor with an appropriat e grant program WVWA Water Quality 2025 Scoping Medium Term Water Pollution Control Plant Flood Protection- Ferrum Flooding Study and execute a solution to prevent flooding within the water pollution control $4,000,00 0 FEMA Post Disaster 2025 Not Short Term Page 336 of 362 Chapter 7: Mitigation Action Plans Page | 7-67 Project Hazard Cost Benefit -to-Funding Implementation/Lea Adde d to Propose d Water Pollution Control Plant Flood Protection- Boones Mill Flooding Construction of stormwater conveyance system to prevent flooding within the water pollution control FEMA Post Disaster 2025 Not Short Term Study WVWA Dams and establish a replacement Flooding, Geologic Hazards, Long term planning to evaluate dam Low- WVWA, Grantor with an appropriat e grant 2025 Not Long Term Distribution System All- resiliency of water distribution and collection Mediu m Grantor with an appropriat e grant WVWA Engineering 2025 Not Long Term Carvins Cove Forestry Management Wildfire, Geologic mitigate wildfire, to create resiliency in water quality from source to tap, including reservoir and WVWA, City of Roanoke, Grantor with an appropriat e grant 2025 Medium Term Page 337 of 362 Additional Materials a References ASPR TRACIE. (2023). Extreme Heat Events: Lessons from Seattle's Record-Breaking Summers. Retrieved from https://files.asprtracie.hhs.gov/documents/extreme-heat- events-lessons-from-seattles-record-breaking-summers.pdf CISA, MARISA, GLISA. (n.d.). Climate and Hazard Mitigation Planning Tool. Retrieved June 20, 2025, from https://champ.rcc-acis.org/ Commonwealth of Virginia. (2016). Impounding Structure Regulations. Retrieved August 1, 2025, from DCR.Virginia.gov: https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dam-safety-and- floodplains/document/ds-va-code-4vac50-20-10.pdf Division of Health Statistics, Virginia Department of Health. (n.d.). Statistical Reports and Table. Retrieved June 20, 2025, from https://apps.vdh.virginia.gov/HealthStats/stats.htm Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, March 27). Extreme Heat. Retrieved June 20, 2025, from EPA.gov: https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/extreme-heat Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2004). Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. Government. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2024, July). FEMA.gov. Retrieved from Introduction to 2024 Edition Seismic Design Category Maps: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema- seismicdesigncategorymaps-july2024.pdf HNTB Corporation. (2025). After-Action Assessment Report. City of Richmond. Landslide Hazard Mapping. (n.d.). Retrieved August 15, 2025, from Virginia Department of Energy: https://energy.virginia.gov/geology/FEMA_landslide.shtml National Weather Service. (n.d.). Wet Bulb Globe Temperature Informational Guide. Retrieved June 20, 2025, from Weather.gov: https://www.weather.gov/media/ilm/WBGT_Handout.pdf Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. (2025). Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2025-2029. Sublette, S. (2025, January 1). A consistently cold start to 2025, with opportunities for snow. The Richmonder. Page 338 of 362 Additional Materials b Tonya E. Thornton, P. a. (2024). The Economic and Fiscal Costs of Water Supply Disruption to the National Capital Region. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Virginia Department of Emergency Management. (2023). Commonwealth of Virginia Hazard Mitigation Plan. Richmond: Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia Department of Energy. (n.d.). KarstView User Guide and Explanation. Retrieved https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/165901d938ae458f8e9e44d656b74389 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.). Water Supply Planning. Retrieved August 4, 2025, from https://www.deq.virginia.gov/our-programs/water/water- quantity/water-supply-planning Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.). Water Supply Planning Resources. Retrieved July 14, 2025, from https://www.deq.virginia.gov/our- programs/water/water-quantity/water-supply-planning/water-supply-planning- resources Virginia Department of Transportation. (2002). VDOT Drainage Manual. Richmond: Commonwealth of Virginia. Retrieved August 2025, from https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/doing-business/technical-guidance-and- support/technical-guidance-documents/drainage-manual/ Virginia Department of Transportation. (2024). Mileage Tables: The State Highway Systems. Richmond: Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia Health Information. (2021, February 26). Retrieved June 20, 2025, from https://www.vhi.org/Hospitals/vahospitals.asp Page 339 of 362 Additional Materials c Appendices Appendix A: Public Engagement Summary and Documentation Appendix B: Hazard Mitigation Survey Results Public Input Survey Report Stakeholder Form Responses Appendix C: Flood Hazard Areas Appendix D: Flooding HAZUS Reports 100 Year Flood Model 500 Year Flood Model Appendix E: Wildfire Incident Reports and Regional Wildfire Report Wildfire Incident Reports Regional Wildfire Risk Model Report Appendix F: Critical and Vulnerable Facilities Inventory Appendix G: Jurisdiction Capability Assessment Worksheets Appendix H: High Hazard Dam Supplemental Information Dam Safety Fact Sheets Inundation Maps Beaverdam Creek Inundation Maps Carvin Cove Inundation Maps Falling Creek Inundation Maps Johns Creek 1 Inundation Maps Johns Creek 2 Inundation Maps Johns Creek 3 Inundation Maps Johns Creek 4 Inundation Maps Spring Hollow Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool Outputs Appendix I: Policy Guide Checklist Appendix J: Resolutions and Adoption Page 340 of 362 [blank] Page 341 of 362 Page 342 of 362 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, FEBRUARY 9, 2025: WHEREAS the City of Salem recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property within the City of Salem; and WHEREAS the City of Salem in participation in the Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission Hazard Mitigation Committee, has prepared a multi-hazard mitigation plan, hereby known as the Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2025 Update, in accordance with federal laws, including the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended; the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended; and the National Dam Safety Program Act, as amended; and WHEREAS the Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2025 Update identifies mitigation goals and actions to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property in the City of Salem from the impacts of future hazards and disasters; and WHEREAS adoption by the Salem City Council demonstrates its commitment to hazard mitigation and achieving the goals outlined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2025 Update. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, that the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by FEMA January 12, 2026, is hereby approved and adopted. John Saunders – Page 343 of 362 Item #: 6.D. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 1519- Temporary Main Street Closure for Olde Salem Days 2026 Consider adoption of Resolution 1519 requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approve City Council’s request for the temporary closure of Main Street on September 12, 2026, for the Olde Salem Days event. SUBMITTED BY: Chris Dorsey, City Manager SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Rotary Club of Salem and City staff have begun planning for the return of the Olde Salem Days event on September 12, 2026. This popular event requires the temporary closure of multiple street sections in the downtown area on this day from 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The closure of the Main Street (US Route 460) section from Chestnut Street/Lewis Avenue to Thompson Memorial Drive requires approval from VDOT. This resolution will provide a formal request to VDOT by the City to approve this temporary closure on Main Street. All other street sections requiring closure during the event can be administratively approved by the City. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approval of Resolution 1519. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Olde Salem Days 2026 Resolution 1519 Page 344 of 362 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, February 9, 2026: RESOLUTION 1519 WHEREAS, the Salem Rotary Club has planned activities in the downtown area of Salem to involve citizens on September 12, 2026, from 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. that will require the closing of Main Street (Route 460) between Chestnut Street and Lewis Avenue to Thompson Memorial Drive; and WHEREAS, Council concurs in the request from The Rotary Club of Salem for the closing of Main Street for this date and time and has developed alternate routing for traffic around the downtown area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that Council doth request the Virginia Department of Transportation to concur and approve Council's request to allow the closing of Main Street (Route 460) between Chestnut Street and Lewis Avenue to Thompson Memorial Drive on Saturday, September 12, 2026; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation. __________________________ Page 345 of 362 Item #: 6.E. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Taxicabs- Setting of Public Hearing Date Consider setting the date for a public hearing in accordance with Section 98-94 of THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, for the issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for the next twelve (12) months related to taxicabs operating in the City. (Suggest March 23, 2026). SUBMITTED BY: Rob Light, Assistant City Manager/Clerk of Council SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: As prescribed in section 98-94 of the Code of the City of Salem: The Council shall conduct a hearing each year between January 1 and March 31 for the purpose of determining the number of taxicabs for which certificates shall be issued during the next year and for the purpose of determining to which persons such certificates shall be issued, after a consideration of the factors prescribed in section 98-87. No certificate shall be renewable as a matter of right, but the Council shall decide in the exercise of its sound discretion and after consideration of the factors prescribed in section 98-87 to which persons such certificates shall be issued for the next certificate year. Such hearing shall be public, after notice thereof has been given by mail to all holders of certificates and applicants for certificates, at the address shown on such certificates and applications and after notice thereof by publication at least once and not less than ten days prior to the hearing in some newspaper published or having a general circulation in the city. Any such hearing may be continued from time to time without further notice. FISCAL IMPACT: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council set a public hearing date of March 23, 2026. ATTACHMENTS: Page 346 of 362 1. Code Section Taxicabs Page 347 of 362 Salem, VA Code of Ordinances Sec. 98-94. -Council's annual hearing. The council shall conduct a hearing each year between January 1 and March 31 for the purpose of determining the number of taxicabs for which certificates shall be issued during the next year and for the purpose of determining to which persons such certificates shall be issued, after a consideration of the factors prescribed in.section 98-87. No certificate shall be renewable as a matter of right, but the council shall decide in the exercise of its sound discretion and after consideration of the factors prescribed in section 98-87 to which persons such certificates shall be issued for the next certificate year. Such hearing shall be public, after notice thereof has been given by mail to all holders of certificates and applicants for certificates, at the address shown on such certificates and applications and after notice thereof by publication at least once and not less than ten days prior to the hearing in some newspaper published or having a general circulation in the city. Any such hearing may be continued from time to time without further notice. (Code 1969, § 28-37) about:blank 2/5/2020 Item# 6.E Date: 02/9/2026 Page 348 of 362 Item #: 6.F. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Salem Band Boosters Donation Consider a request from the Salem Band Boosters for a donation of $715.05, equal to the amount of admissions tax paid in connection with the annual Blue Ridge Regional High School Band Competition, held September 20, 2025, at Salem Stadium. SUBMITTED BY: Chris Dorsey, City Manager SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Salem Band Boosters filed an Admissions Tax form for a tax payment of $715.05 with the Commissioner of Revenue's Office. This amount was based upon the ticket sales for the annual Blue Ridge Regional High School Band Competition that was held in the Salem Stadium on September 20, 2025. Historically, Council has made a donation equal to the tax remittance to support the Band. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact would be $715.05. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends consideration of the donation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Salem City Tax Letter 2025 Blue Ridge HS.docx (002) Page 349 of 362 Salem Band Boosters P. O. Box 535 Salem, Virginia 24153 December 17, 2025 Salem City Council P. O. Box 869 Salem, Virginia 24153 Honorable Members of the Salem City Council: On behalf of the Salem Band Boosters, I would like to thank you for your continued support of the Salem High School Band program and for your longstanding commitment to the students of our community. We are writing to formally notify you that the Salem Band Boosters have filed an Admissions Tax form and submitted payment in the amount of $715.05, based on ticket sales from our annual Blue Ridge Regional High School Band Competition, held at Salem Stadium on Saturday, September 20, 2025. This event serves as a fundraiser and provides critical funding to support the many educational, musical, and performance opportunities available to students in the Salem High School Band program. The success of this event allows our students to continue representing the City of Salem with pride and excellence. In past years, Salem City Council has generously supported the Boosters and our band program by making a contribution equal to the amount of the Admissions Tax paid. This support has been instrumental in helping offset the ongoing operational expenses of our program, and we are deeply appreciative of this partnership. We respectfully request that consideration be given to making a similar contribution again this year, equal to the Admissions Tax amount paid, at your next City Council meeting. Should our presence be helpful or required, please advise us of the date, time, and location of the meeting, and we would be happy to present this request in person. Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued support. The Salem Band Boosters sincerely appreciate City Council’s dedication to our students and to preserving the excellence and tradition of the Salem High School Band program, proudly carried on in the finest “Salem Tradition.” With sincere gratitude Dawn Evans Blue Ridge Fall Music Games Coordinator Salem Band Boosters Cell:757-870-8000 Page 350 of 362 Item #: 6.G. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds- Gateway Signage Request to re-appropriate grant funds awarded by the Community Foundation and funding provided by Roanoke County for gateway signage. Audit - Finance Committee SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In fiscal year 2022, the City received $50,000 from the Community Foundation for gateway signage. The grant was secured by Virginia’s Blue Ridge for a consistent signage plan throughout the region at city/county/town limits on major corridors. In fiscal year 2024, $38,175 was received from the County of Roanoke for their portion of the gateway signage for total project funding of $88,175. In fiscal year 2024, work totaling $18,265 was completed on the project, but delays from other localities and VDOT have created the need to re-appropriate the remaining $69,910 in fiscal year 2026 to pay final expenditures on the signage. FISCAL IMPACT: Re-appropriating the remaining $69,910 will allow for the completion of the signage project in fiscal year 2026. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $31,735 to the Designation of Beginning Fund Balance revenue account 10-012-0100-40200, $38,175 to the Grants – Other revenue account 10-053-0100-47095 for the deferred County of Roanoke portion, and $69,910 to the Tourism Grants expenditure account 10-053-8170-55957. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 351 of 362 Item #: 6.H. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds- Capital Reserve Policy Request to appropriate and transfer capital reserve. Audit - Finance Committee SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Capital Planning and Reserve Policy was adopted on March 25, 2024. This policy was developed as a plan to provide funding for mid-level capital expenditures for the general fund. The funds are intended for expenditures between $200,000 and $3,000,000. Examples include building improvements, bridge improvements, storm water infrastructure improvements, streetscape improvements, park improvements, and major equipment purchases. The funds can also be used for project overages upon approval by City Council. The funds are also available for one-time appropriations at the discretion of the City Manager and with approval from City Council. This could include emergency capital expenditures not already included in the approved capital budget. The policy also includes a minimum acceptable level of capital reserves of $4,000,000. This would allow the City to meet any unexpected capital needs. The policy calls for an annual contribution from the general fund to the capital reserve fund upon completion of the audit. For fiscal year 2025, a calculation was completed using amounts from the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) to determine the annual contribution to the capital reserve. Per the attached calculation, the contribution based on the fiscal year 2025 ACFR is $6,816,568. This amount needs to be transferred from the General Fund to the Capital Reserve Fund. FISCAL IMPACT: By establishing and maintaining a capital reserve, the City provides funding for mid-level capital expenditures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $6,816,568 to General Fund revenue account 10-012- Page 352 of 362 0100-40200, Designation of Beginning Fund Balance, and General Fund expenditure account 10-012-9100-59415, Transfer to Capital Reserve. Staff recommends appropriating $6,816,568 to Capital Reserve Fund revenue account 21-012-0200-49906, Transfer from General Fund – Capital Reserve, and Capital Reserve Fund expenditure account, 21-012-0205-54900, Capital Reserve. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Capital Reserve Contribution Calculation FY25 Page 353 of 362 City of Salem, VA Capital Reserve Contribution Calculation FY2025 FY2025 General Fund unassigned fund balance per Exhibit 3 59,993,132 (52,489,829) 7/1/2025 Reappropriate funds for Skateboard Park (200,000) 10/14/2025 FY25 Carryover: City Hall (296,000) 10/14/2025 FY25 Carryover: Sheriff Sound Dampening Panels (3,000) 10/14/2025 FY25 Carryover: Sheriff Calendar Sales (6,000) 10/14/2025 FY25 Carryover: Safe Streest Action Plan (SS4A grant)(25,000) 10/14/2025 FY25 Carryover: Salem Memorial Park Concourse LED Lights (25,000) 10/14/2025 FY25 Carryover: Salem Memorial Park Safety Panels Replacement (75,000) 10/14/2025 FY25 Carryover: Salem Stadium LED lighting in bathrooms, locker rooms and pressboxes (25,000) 2/9/2026 Appropriation of Community Foundation gateway signage funds (31,735) (686,735) Capital Reserve Contribution 6,816,568 Less: Appropriation(s) of General Fund unassigned fund balance subsequent to the date of the previous fiscal year ACFR Less: (General Fund total expenditures + Debt Service Fund total expenditures per Exhibit 5) divided by 2 Page 354 of 362 Item #: 6.I. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds- Water Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Request to appropriate Water Fund reserves for Advanced Metering infrastructure (AMI). Audit - Finance Committee SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In 2016, the City initiated a project to provide Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) for both electric and water utilities. AMI meters are equipped with communication modules that automatically send usage data back to the utility. Instead of a meter reader visiting each location, readings are collected electronically, to provide accurate data. The two-way communication also allows the utilities to quickly detect unusual consumption or water leaks and respond efficiently. Residents and businesses can access data and tools online to allow them to better track and manage their utility consumption. Installation on the multi-year project commenced in 2020. The electric metering system installation has been completed. The City experienced issues with the original vendor contracted to install AMI water meters and approximately 1,200 meters remain to be installed for completion of the project. The City has completed the procurement process with two vendors selected to complete the installation of the AMI water meters. The cost of materials, installation and contingency for the project is estimated not to exceed $1,200,000. Funding for completion of the project is available in the Water Fund Reserve account and requires Council appropriation. Completion of the AMI system enables the City to fully realize the benefits of its investment. FISCAL IMPACT: The budget for installing these meters to achieve full integration of the AMI system is $1,200,000. Funding is available for this purpose in the Water Fund Reserve account. Page 355 of 362 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests appropriating $1,200,000 to the Appropriated From Net Position revenue account 51-051-0020-44596 and to the Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) System expenditure account 51-051-0022-58017. It is recommended that Council authorize any funds budgeted but not spent in the current fiscal year be administratively appropriated in the subsequent fiscal year to be used only for this project, and to authorize staff to administratively transfer any unspent funds upon project closeout back to the Water Fund Reserve account. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 356 of 362 Item #: 6.J. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds- Downtown Plan Improvements Request to appropriate Revenue Sharing and local match for Downtown Improvements on Roanoke Boulevard. Audit - Finance Committee SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Downtown improvements will be completed on Roanoke Boulevard from the intersection of Market Street and East Main Street to the intersection of Roanoke Boulevard and College Avenue. Improvements include replacing and widening sidewalks, improving crosswalks, installing streetscaping and new lighting as proposed in Salem’s Downtown Plan, and improving safety for pedestrians and motorists by shortening and improving pedestrian crossings and visibility. VDOT awarded $1,491,803 in Revenue Sharing funds for the completion of the downtown improvements on Roanoke Boulevard. A local match of $1,491,803 is needed to fully fund the project. $250,000 was included in the fiscal year 2026 budget for this project and the additional $1,241,803 is available in the Capital Projects downtown reserve and project reserve accounts for this purpose. FISCAL IMPACT: The Revenue Sharing funds and local match will allow the City to construct downtown improvements on Roanoke Boulevard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $1,491,803 to the Capital Projects state grants account 20-012-0200-48495 and to the Downtown Improvement-Boulevard account 20-080- 0205-54810. Staff recommends transferring $443,090 from the Capital Projects Downtown Improvements Reserve account 20-012-0205-54807 to the Downtown Improvement- Boulevard account 20-080-0205-54810. Staff also recommends transferring $798,713 Page 357 of 362 from the Capital Projects Reserve account 20-012-0205-54100 to the Downtown Improvement-Boulevard account 20-080-0205-54810. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 358 of 362 Item #: 6.K. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Contract with AEP Energy Partners (Amended Item) Request to approve and execute a contract with AEP Energy Partners Audit-Finance Committee An amended Council report has been added to this item. SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The City’s current contract to purchase electricity from APCO will expire on May 31, 2026 With the assistance of GDS Associates, Inc. and Blue Ridge Power Agency, an RFP was issued for a new contract for electric needs for the members. A presentation was given to City Council in a work session on February 12, 2024, detailing the proposals received and the evaluation of the merits of each proposal. After lengthy review of the proposals the City of Salem selected NextEra as the new provider of power beginning June 1, 2026. This new contract will be a fixed load shape contract. The City purchased a predetermined amount of electricity at a fixed price that is tailored to match our expected consumption pattern. Any extreme weather that requires a higher need for power than what has been procured will require the City to purchase additional power on the open market. In order to successfully interact with the electric market, the City of Salem needs to establish a relationship, either directly or through a third party, with PJM in order to receive other necessary services, which includes balancing energy requirements for fluctuating daily needs, capacity needs during peak periods, and transmission service (AEP transmission is paid through PJM). The most desirable pathway to establishing the needed PJM relationship with corresponding credit requirements would be directly with PJM and monitoring Salem’s own credit and collateral requirements as energy needs vary into the future. However, it does not appear that PJM will complete Salem’s application review in time to transfer necessary and valuable transmission congestion rights into Salem’s account for the upcoming twelve months (June 2026 – May 2027). Page 359 of 362 Therefore, City staff requests authority to negotiate and execute a PJM Market Participation and Energy Management services agreement with AEP Energy Partners to include the following market participation services: PJM account administration, collateral and credit requirements and pass-through invoicing of all necessary PJM charges, separating invoicing for any key accounts, coordination of other submittals to PJM including annual and monthly Auction Revenue Right (ARR) elections and Financial Transmission Right (FTR) hedges of interest. The agreement would also provide energy management services to include the following: daily scheduling of Salem contracts, including Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) power and other energy block contracts, such as the NextEra Energy fixed load shape supply, provide daily load forecasts for next-day electric load and submit a corresponding demand bid to PJM. The agreement with AEP Energy Partners was evaluated by GDS Associates, Inc. during the original RFP process for power. They were recommended as an option for a vendor to provide the services needed by the City as a part of our new electric purchased power contract. The services for a one-year period would be approximately $75,000 - $115,000. At the end of the first year, the City would have the option to renew the contract with AEP Energy Partners or finalize the membership with PJM Interconnections LLC. If the City opts to join PJM, we will need to provide the collateral required as part of membership. That amount is currently estimated to be approximately $1,600,000 for the secured portion. This amount would be reduced by the unsecured credit calculation by PJM. That figure is not currently available but is expected to substantially reduce the collateral required for membership. FISCAL IMPACT: A contract with AEP Energy Partners would allow the City to participate in the auction for valuable transmission congestion rights and use those credits as a reduction of future power costs. It would also provide the services needed as part of our new electric contract. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Council authorize the City Manager, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to execute an agreement with AEP Energy Partners to handle the City’s market participation services and energy management services. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 360 of 362 Item #: 6.L. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds- E911 State Grant Request to appropriate E-911 state grant funds for 911 Communication Center telephone services. SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The City of Salem was awarded a state grant from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management to complete migration to the NG911 platform. This migration was completed in fiscal year 2025. As a result of this migration, telephone service expenditures increased for the City 911 Communications Center. The increase between the previous telephone expenditures and the new telephone expenditures was covered by the grant for a two-year period. For the City, this two-year period spans from March 2025 to February 2027. The grant allocated $91,446.72 to cover the increase in telephone expenditures. Of this amount, $15,241.12 was allocated to fiscal year 2025, $45,723.36 is allocated to fiscal year 2026, and $30,482.24 will be allocated to fiscal year 2027. In addition, an additional piece of software is required for migration that will be paid from the grant in fiscal year 2026 at a total cost of $34,446.46. FISCAL IMPACT: Appropriating $45,724 will cover the increase in telephone expenditures in the fiscal year 2026 911 Communication Centers operating budget and appropriating $34,447 will cover the additional piece of software. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $80,171 to Police State Grants revenue account 10- 030-0100-48395, $45,724 to the Police 911 Communication Center Telephone Services expenditure account 10-030-3140-55230, and $34,447 to the Police 911 Communication Center State Grants expenditure account 10-030-3140-55859. ATTACHMENTS: Page 361 of 362 None Page 362 of 362