The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1/27/2026 - RegularPage 1 of 5 Due to impending winter weather conditions, please continue to monitor the Roanoke County website for potential changes to the Board meeting schedule. Inclement weather may necessitate the cancelation or rescheduling of the Board’s regularly scheduled meeting on January 27th. Updates will be posted as soon as decisions are made. Please check the website before coming to the Board meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG Disclaimer: “Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Board meeting shall be the voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the Board. The views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Board and do not necessarily represent the religious beliefs or views of the Board in part or as a whole. No member of the community is required to attend or participate in the invocation and such decision will have no impact on their right to actively participate in the business of the Board.” Roanoke County Board of Supervisors January 27, 2026 Page 2 of 5 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for January 27, 2026. Regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 6:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Friday at 7:00 p.m. and on Sunday from 10:00 a.m. until 5 p.m. Board of Supervisors meetings can also be viewed online through Roanoke County’s website at www.RoanokeCountyVA.gov. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. Please turn all cell phones off or place them on silent. A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of appreciation to David F. Radford for his service as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 2025. (Tammy E. Shepherd, Chair of the Board of Supervisors) 2. Recognition of Roanoke County employees recognized in the Roanoker magazine as the 40 under 40 young professionals. (J. Eric Orange, Sheriff) D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a donation from the Friends of the Roanoke County Public Library in the amount of $46,000 for use by the Roanoke County Library Department. (Jim Blanton, Director of Library Services) (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda January 27, 2026 Page 3 of 5 E. APPOINTMENTS 1. Roanoke Regional Airport Commission Gary S. Powers – term to expire February 10, 2030 2. Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority Richard Caywood – County Representative – term to expire February 4, 2030 Alex Jones – County Alternate – term to expire February 4, 2030 Doug Blount – County Alternate – term to expire February 3, 2028 F. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 1. Approval of minutes – January 13, 2026 2. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 (Administration), Article V (County Board Organization and Procedure), Section 2 -110 (Roll Call) of the Roanoke County Code. (Second Reading) 3. Ordinance authorizing the granting of easements to the Western Virginia Water Authority for the Gish Mill Water Line Improvement Project on property owned by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 4. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $24,849 from Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation for new armor plates for the SWAT Team. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 5. Resolution adopting the updated Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan 2025 Update. 6. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $25,000 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services to Roanoke County Fire and Rescue. G. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS This time has been set aside for Roanoke County citizens, County property owners, and County business owners to address the Board on matters of interest or concern. While the Board desires to hear from all who desire to speak, this agenda item is Page 4 of 5 limited to a duration of 30 minutes. Each individual speaker shall be afforded 3 minutes to speak. H. REPORTS 1. Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of December 31, 2025 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of December 31, 2025 5. Accounts Paid – December 2025 6. Statement of the Treasurer’s Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of December 31, 2025 I. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors fiscal year 2025 -2026 mid- year revenues and expenditures. (Steve Elliott, Budget Administrator) 2. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the real estate assessment process. (Ken Fay, Real Estate Valuation) J. CLOSED MEETING 1. Section 2.2-3711(A)(5) of the Code of Virginia, 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. The Board will discuss potential business location or expansion in the five magisterial districts. EVENING SESSION – 6:00 PM K. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION L. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING Page 5 of 5 1. The petition of Katie Gray (on behalf of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust) to amend a special use permit condition regarding the architectural plans including exterior materials and colors for the Clearbrook Walmart on approximately 29.97 acres of land zoned C-2S, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District, located at 5350 Clearbrook Village Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) (Second Reading and Public Hearing) M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Martha B. Hooker 2. Paul M. Mahoney 3. David F. Radford 4. Phil C. North 5. Tammy E. Shepherd N. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 27, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of appreciation to David F. Radford for his service as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: This time has been set aside to recognize David F. Radford for his service as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 2025. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2026 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DAVID F. RADFORD FOR HIS SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN 2025 WHEREAS, David F. Radford served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors during 2025; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes during Mr. Radford’s term as Chairman, the County achieved numerous accomplishments contributing to economic growth, including: • Elbit America’s investment of more than $30 million in facility improvements and equipment, creating nearly 300 new jobs and expanding its workforce to more than 1,000 employees • More than $150 million in new project investments since 2023, resulting in the creation of over 1,500 new jobs • Redevelopment along Electric Road at Tanglewood Crossing, adding new retail and office space • The groundbreaking of a $12 million Extended Stay Hotel in the Town of Vinton • Ongoing expansions including Mack Trucks’ $14 million, 72,000 -square-foot facility expansion and the groundbreaking of a new Publix store along Brambleton Avenue • A thriving local economy now supporting more than 2,100 businesses across a wide range of industries WHEREAS, Mr. Radford has demonstrated a strong commitment to sustaining economic momentum through workforce development and business support initiatives, including: • Prioritizing workforce development to ensure local businesses have access to a skilled and prepared talent pipeline • Strengthening partnerships with Roanoke County Public Schools to connect students and educators with local career pathways • Supporting programs such as Manufacturing Day and Industry Insight Tours, which expose students and teachers to modern manufacturing careers and local employment opportunities • Supporting the Business Equipment Acquisition Program Grant, which has awarded more than $200,000 to 27 businesses in Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton over the past two years WHEREAS, during Mr. Radford’s leadership, Roanoke County took proactive steps to better understand and plan for housing needs, including: • Initiating a County-specific Housing Market Analysis Study to identify housing gaps, affordability trends, and future needs • Using data-driven analysis to guide long-term planning and ensure housing options align with the needs of current and future residents WHEREAS, Mr. Radford has been a strong advocate for transportation, safety, and outdoor connectivity projects that enhance quality of life, including: • The official transfer of Explore Park to Roanoke County following more than a decade of investment under a 99-year lease • The opening of the Appalachian Trail pedestrian bridge over Route 311 • The continued success of the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle, providing nearly 2,000 rides and reducing congestion at a nationally recognized destination • The adoption of the Safe Streets and Roads for All initiative to identify high - crash corridors and guide safety improvements in coordination with VDOT • The completion of four major greenway segments, including the Roanoke River Greenway to Explore Park, Glade Creek Greenway, significant portions of the East Roanoke River Greenway, and Phase 1 of the West Roanoke River Greenway in partnership with the City of Salem • More than $17.7 million in combined local, state, and federal investment in greenway infrastructure WHEREAS, Mr. Radford provided steady fiscal leadership and focused on responsible governance and tax relief, including: • The enactment of substantial tax relief measures, including reductions to real estate, personal property, and machinery and tools tax rates, as well as increased thresholds for business license fees • Delivering more than $47 million in total tax savings to residents and businesses • Maintaining a commitment to efficient, responsible government while easing the impacts of inflation on citizens WHEREAS, education and public safety remained top priorities during Mr. Radford’s tenure, including: • Directing more than $104 million of the County’s budget to Roanoke County Public Schools • Ongoing construction of the new $75 million Career and Technical Education Center, providing more than 123,000 square feet of modern learning space aligned with workforce needs • The opening of the $8 million Bonsack Fire Station, a 12,000 -square-foot facility staffed by 18 additional fire and rescue personnel, strengthening emergency response and community safety; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude to David F. Radford for his dedicated service as Chairman, his leadership, and his unwavering commitment to the citizens of Roanoke County. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 27, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of Roanoke County employees recognized in the Roanoker magazine as the 40 under 40 young professionals SUBMITTED BY: Eric Orange Sheriff APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: This time has been set aside to recognize the following Roanoke County employees: DSIV Ethan Sweeney and Sgt. Alex Wertz, who have been recognized in the Roanoker magazine as a 40 under 40 young professional. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 27, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance accepting and appropriating a donation from the Friends of the Roanoke County Public Library in the amount of $46,000 for use by the Roanoke County Library Department SUBMITTED BY: James L. Blanton Director of Library Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Acceptance and appropriation of $46,000 received as a donation from the Friends of the Roanoke County Public Library (Friends), and to recognize the Friends for its donation to the Library’s Summer Reading Program and annual programming and services for all ages. BACKGROUND: The Friends of the Roanoke County Public Library is a non-profit fundraising group that advocates and supports library reading programs for all ages, and promotes the value of libraries. The Friends believe a strong public library is essential to the Roanoke Valley, and have supported Library programs since the organization formed in the early 1990s. The Library Department is requesting these funds be accepted and appropriated for use by the Library Department for Library programming and services. DISCUSSION: The Library Department will use the funds to support Library programs and services. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $46,000 are from the Friends of the Library for use by the Page 2 of 2 Library to support Library programming and services. No County matching funds are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the attached ordinance and setting the second reading for February 10, 2026. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,000 FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR USE BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY LIBRARY WHEREAS, the Friends of the Roanoke County Public Library is a non-profit fundraising group that advocates and supports library reading programs for all ages, promotes the value of libraries, and believes a strong public library is essential, supporting Library programs since the organization formed in the early 1990s; and WHEREAS, the Friends of the Roanoke County Public Library wishes to donate $46,000 for use by the Library Department for the Library’s 2026 Summer Reading Program as well as annual programming and services for all ages; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 2026, and the second reading was held on February 10, 2026. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $46,000 made available to the Roanoke County Public Library is accepted and appropriated to the General Fund. 2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 27, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (At-Large) and Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority SUBMITTED BY: Rhonda Perdue Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Confirmation of appointments BACKGROUND: Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (At-Large): Gary S. Powers' term will expire February 10, 2026. It is the consensus of the Board of Supervisors to reappoint Gary S. Powers to an additional four-year term to expire February 10, 2030. Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority: Richard Caywood's and Alex Jones' terms will expire February 4, 2026; Doug Blount's term will expire February 3, 2026. It is the consensus of the Board of Supervisors to reappoint Richard Caywood and Alex Jones to additional four-year terms to expire February 4, 2030; and to extend Doug Blount's term to expire February 3, 2028. FISCAL IMPACT: Page 2 of 2 There is no fiscal impact associated with this Board agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appointments. Page 1 of 1 A T A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2026 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM F- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 27, 2026, designated as Item F - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – January 13, 2026 2. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 (Administration), Article V (County Board Organization and Procedure), Section 2-110 (Roll Call) of the Roanoke County Code. (Second Reading) 3. Ordinance authorizing the granting of easements to the Western Virginia Water Authority for the Gish Mill Water Line Improvement Project on property owned by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 4. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $24,849 from Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation for new armor plates for the SWAT Team. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 5. Resolution adopting the updated Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan 2025 Update. 6. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $25,000 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services to Roanoke County Fire and Rescue. Page 1 of 8 NOTE: The Board of Supervisors will hold its annual organizational meeting at 1:00 p.m. in the Board Meeting Room prior to the regularly scheduled Board Meeting A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call Present: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford Absent: None Staff Present: Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Doug Blount, Deputy County Administrator; Madeline Hanlon, Assistant County Administrator; Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and Rhonda D. Perdue, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board B. ORGANIZATION OF COUNTY BOARD 1. Election of Officers: Action No. 011325-1 Item B.1a 1.a Chairman Supervisor North nominated Supervisor Shepherd to serve as Chairman for the calendar year 2026. No other nominations. Nomination approved. Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Radford Nays: None Abstain: Supervisor Shepherd Action No. 011326-2 Item B.1b 1.b Vice Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Minutes January 13, 2026 – 1:00 p.m. Page 2 of 8 Supervisor North nominated Supervisor Radford to serve as Vice-Chairman for the calendar year 2026. No other nominations. Nomination approved. Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd Nays: None Abstain: Supervisor Radford C. NEW BUSINESS Action No. 011326-3 Item C.1 1. Resolution adopting a Code of Ethics and Conduct for the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. (Chair, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors) Supervisor Hooker moved to adopt the resolution. Supervisor Mahoney seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd Nays: None Madam Chair Shepherd recessed the meeting until 2:00 p.m. for the regular scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting. Page 3 of 8 Earlier this afternoon, at 1:00 pm, the Board held its annual organizational meeting. The Board returned to open session. All Board members were present. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of January 2026. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Before the meeting was called to order, an invocation/a moment of silence was observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. D. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS E. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS Action No. 011326-4 Item E.1 1. Resolution congratulating the Cave Spring High School Competition Cheer team for winning the 2025 Virginia High School League (VHSL) Class 3A Championship (Paul M. Mahoney, Supervisor for the Cave Spring Magisterial District) Supervisor Mahoney moved to adopt the resolution. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd Nays: None F. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing by Visit Virginia’s Blue Ridge to provide 2025 tourism results. (Landon Howard, President, VBR) Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Minutes January 13, 2026 – 2:00 p.m. Page 4 of 8 Briefing was given by Landon Howard, and the Board was presented a check for USA Cycling’s funding raising back to Explore Park for hosting the race and trail rehab. 2. Briefing by the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. (Jeremy Holmes, Executive Director, RVARC) Briefing was given by Jeremy Holmes. G. APPOINTMENTS Action No. 011326-5 Item G.1-2 1. Community Policy & Management Team (CPMT): Chris Roberts – Court Services Unit – Alternate - no term limit Kimberly Doyle – Parent Representative – term to expire 1-13-2029 2. Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission Steve Elliott – Roanoke County Alternate – term to expire 6-30-2028 Supervisor Hooker moved to approve all appointments. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd Nays: None H. CONSENT AGENDA Action No. 011326-6.a-j Item H.1-10 ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY Action No. 011326-6.a Item H.1 1. Approval of minutes – December 16, 2025 Action No. 011326-6.b Item H.2 2. Ordinance approving a Fourth Amendment to Rooftop Lease with T-Mobile Northeast LLC on property owned by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia located at 220 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia. (Second Reading) Page 5 of 8 Action No. 011326-6.c Item H.3 3. Request to accept and allocate $2,000.00 from Wal-Mart’s Spark Good Local Grant requested from Facility #1309. Action No. 011326-6.d Item H.4 4. Resolution designating Subdivision Agent and Alternate Subdivision Agent for Roanoke County. Action No. 011326-6.e Item H.5 5. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $5,000 from the J. Spencer and Joy Frantz Donor Advised Fund of Community Foundation Serving Western Virginia to Roanoke County Fire and Rescue. Action No. 011326-6.f Item H.6 6. Resolution supporting Huntridge Road Traffic Calming Measures, Hollins Magisterial District. Action No. 011326-6.g Item H.7 7. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $19,483.82 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for Technology Trust Funds. Action No. 011326-6.h Item H.8 8. Request to trade a surplus vehicle for a surplus bus from Roanoke County Public Schools. Action No. 011326-6.i Item H.9 9. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 (Administration), Article V (County Board Organization and Procedure), Section 2-110 (Roll Call) of the Roanoke County Code. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) Action No. 011326-6.j Item H.10 10. Resolution honoring Mr. Fred Corbett for his outstanding Service to Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism. Supervisor Mahoney requested that Ordinance appropriating $107,749,110.11 from the Roanoke County Public Schools' fiscal year 2024-2025 year-end funds to the Page 6 of 8 fiscal year 2025-2026 Roanoke County Public Schools Budget. (Second Reading) be removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. With no objection, Supervisor North moved to adopt the remaining matters on the consent agenda. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd Nays: None I. ITEM FOR DISCUSSION Action No. 011326-7 Item I.1 1. Ordinance appropriating $107,749,110.11 from the Roanoke County Public Schools' fiscal year 2024-2025 year-end funds to the fiscal year 2025-2026 Roanoke County Public Schools Budget. (Second Reading) Supervisor Mahoney moved to approve the ordinance. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd Nays: None J. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS This time has been set aside for Roanoke County citizens, County property owners, and County business owners to address the Board on matters of interest or concern. While the Board desires to hear from all who desire to speak, this agenda item is limited to a duration of 30 minutes, Each individual speaker shall be afforded 3 minutes to speak. One citizen was present and spoke on Dark Skies . K. REPORTS Action No. 011326-8 Item K.1-2 1. Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report Supervisor Mahoney moved to receive and file the reports that have been included with the agenda under Item K. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd Nays: None Page 7 of 8 L. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Phil C. North 2. Martha B. Hooker 3. Paul M. Mahoney 4. David F. Radford 5. Tammy E. Shepherd Supervisors were offered the opportunity to share comments and provide updates to their peers and the public on items of interest to them. M. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors a preliminary revenue outlook for fiscal year 2026-2027 projected General Government Fund operating revenues and budget issues. (Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator) 2. Work session to update the Board of Supervisors on the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle and review future budgeting. (Paula Benke, Transit Planner) N. CLOSED MEETING Action No. 011326-9 1. Section 2.2-3711(A)(5) of the Code of Virginia, 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. The Board will discuss potential business location or expansion in the five magisterial districts. Supervisor Shepherd moved to go to closed session. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd Nays: None O. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION Action No. 011326-10 In the closed session just concluded, nothing was discussed except the matter which was identified in the motion to convene in closed session. Only those matters lawfully permitted to be discussed under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act were discussed. Page 8 of 8 Supervisor Radford moved to adopt the certification resolution. Supervisor North seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd Nays: None P. ADJOURNMENT Action No. 011326-11 Supervisor Radford moved to adjourn the meeting. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd Nays: None Submitted by: Approved by: __________________________ __________________________ Richard L. Caywood Tammy E. Shepherd Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Chairman Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.2 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2026 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION), ARTICLE V (COUNTY BOARD ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE), SECTION 2-110 (ROLL CALL) OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Board amend Section 2-110(b) of the County Code in order to provide direction for the seating arrangement of members of the Board ; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 2026, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 2026. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 2 (Administration), Article V (County Board and Procedure), Section 2-110 (Roll Call) is hereby amended as follows (all portions of Sections 2-110 not specifically amended below shall remain without amendment): Sec. 2-110. Roll call. (a)Before proceeding with the business of the board, the clerk or the deputy clerk shall call the roll of the members, and the names of those present shall be entered into the minutes. (b) Seating arrangement. From the Board’s right to left, the following seating arrangement is currently in effect (when this subsection became effective on January 27, 2026): First seat: Windsor Hills Second seat: Catawba Third/ center seat: Chairman (Vinton) Fourth seat: Hollins Fifth seat: Cave Spring In each subsequent year, upon the election of a new chairman, the incoming chairman will move to the third (center) seat, and the outgoing chairman shall move to the seat formerly occupied by the incoming chairman. (cb) Order of voting. The clerk or deputy clerk shall call the roll of the members from the board's right to left with the chairman voting last. 1. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.3 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 cognizant of utility lines on the property) with the WVWA. Pursuant to the terms of the easement, the WVWA agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to the property which may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of the waterline as near as is practicable to the condition at the time the easement is granted. FISCAL IMPACT: Payment of $1.00 has been proposed by the WVWA as fair market value compensation for this easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of this ordinance and the scheduling of a second reading on February 10, 2026. Page 1 of 2 Prepared and Recorded By: Western Virginia Water Authority Consideration: $1.00, see exemption below 601 S. Jefferson St., Suite 300 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Tax Map No. 060.11-04-17.00-0000 Return to same address noted above This Deed is exempt (i) from recordation taxes pursuant to Section 58.1-811 (A)(3) and (C)(5) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and (ii) from the payment of Clerk's fees pursuant to Section 17.1 -266 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. NOTICE TO THE CLERK: When indexing this instrument, please refer to the Western Virginia Water Authority Gish Mill Water Improvements project. THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT, made this ______ day of _________________, 2026, by and between the ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (whether one or more, the "Grantor"); and the WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY, a water and sewer authority created pursuant to Chapter 51 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended ("Grantee"). : W I T N E S S E T H : That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Easement Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described easements, to-wit: A new twenty foot (20’) RIGHT and EASEMENT and a ten foot (10’) temporary construction easement, to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, repair or replace a water line together with related improvements including slope(s), if applicable (collectively, the “easement”), together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across those tracts or parcels of land belonging to the Grantor, acquired by deed dated the 8th day of August, 2013, and recorded in the Clerk's Office for Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as Instrument Number 201313869, and designated on the Land Records as Tax Map No. 060.11-04-17.00-0000 (the “Property”). The location of said easement is generally described on the exhibit attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and more particularly described as being centered over the constructed water line or lines. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor’s property which may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the Property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable to the condition at the time the easement was granted, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents shall have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement, that in any way endangers or interferes with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect the Property have been fully explained to Grantor or Grantor’s authorized representative. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the Property by the Grantee or its assigns and further grantees shall remain the property of the Grantee or its assigns and further grantees. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. Page 2 of 2 The Grantor covenants and agrees for themselves, and for their heirs, successors, successors in title, executors, legal representatives and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement herein granted. The grant and provision of this Easement Agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. To have and to hold unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. WITNESS the following signature(s): GRANTOR: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS By: Title: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ROANOKE to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _____________, 2026, by , its of _____________________________, on behalf of said entity, Grantor. ___________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: My Registration Number is: GRANTEE: WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY By: _________________________________ Dr. Irene “Tesha” Okioga, P.E., PhD. DBIA, LEED AP, ENV SP Title: Director – Engineering Services COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKE to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ___________________, 2026, by Dr. Irene “Tesha” Okioga, P.E., PhD. DBIA, LEED AP, ENV SP, Director of Engineering Services for the Western Virginia Water Authority, on behalf of said corporation, Grantee. ___________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: My Registration Number is: Mattern & Craig Sheet 1 of 2 Mattern & Craig Sheet 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2026 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF EASEMENTS TO THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY FOR THE GISH MILL WATER LINE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Water Authority (“WVWA”) is conducting a water line improvement project with plans to proceed across property owned by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia known as Glade Creek Park; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the WVWA’s project, the WVWA has requested that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia grant it a temporary construction easement and a permanent waterline easement across Glade Creek Park; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and disposition of real estate be authorized only by ordinance; and WHEREAS, a first reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 2026 and the second reading was held on February 10, 2026; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1.That pursuant to the provision of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus and is hereby made available for conveyance to the WVWA for purposes of a public utility easement and a temporary construction easement. 2.That conveyance to the WVWA of the public utility easement and temporary construction easement as shown and described upon the plat entitled “EASEMENT PLAT FOR WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY SHOWING NEW 20’ PERMANENT WATERLINE EASEMENT BEING ACQUIRED FROM ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SITUATED AT 325 GUS NICKS BOULEVARD VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA” prepared by Mattern & Craig, dated November 6, 2025, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized and approved. 3.That the County accepts and appropriates the payment of $1.00 as fair market value compensation for this easement. 4.That the County Administrator, the Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on a form approved by the County Attorney. 5.That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.4 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 These funds will be utilized for the specific purpose of purchasing the Safariland armor plates from Strohman Enterprises. FISCAL IMPACT: The grant funds awarded are $24,849 and will cover 100% of the cost for the items. No county match is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the ordinance and requests scheduling the second reading for February 10, 2026. 1 Joshua Pegram From:Spencer Hoopes Sent:Tuesday, January 6, 2026 9:55 AM To:Mia Nguyen; Joshua Pegram Cc:Wesley Campbell; Steve Short; Jeffrey A. Johnson; Mark Tuck; Mike Poindexter; Christopher J. Gunter Subject:FW: APPROVED: Q1 2026 Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Grant Attachments:Q1 2026 US Press Release Template - FOR GRANT RECIPIENT FINAL.docx; Q1 2026 US Social Media Templates - FOR GRANT RECIPIENT FINAL.docx; Foundation_Full Color Logo CMYK.pdf; Foundation Full Color Logo CMYK.jpg; Foundation_Full Color Logo CMYK.eps Mia and Josh, Please see the email below regarding the grant award from Firehouse Subs. Let me know when you would like me to get this on the Board Agenda, and I will let you know when I hear more from the Foundation. Thanks! From: Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation <foundation@firehousesubs.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2026 09:33 To: Spencer Hoopes <SHOOPES@roanokecountyva.gov>; Christopher J. Gunter <CGUNTER@roanokecountyva.gov> Cc: Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation <foundation@firehousesubs.com>; Kowalsky, Jonathon <jkowalsky@firehousesubs.com>; Carla, Wissemann <carla.wissemann@firehousesubs.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - APPROVED: Q1 2026 Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Grant Dear Sgt. Hoopes & Christopher, We are pleased to announce that the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Board of Directors has awarded County of Roanoke, on behalf of Roanoke County Police Department in Roanoke, VA the requested 36 Safariland ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. Report Suspicious ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Dear Sgt. Hoopes & Christopher, We are pleased to announce that the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Board of Directors has awarded County of Roanoke, on behalf of Roanoke County Police Department in Roanoke, VA the requested 36 Safariland Armor Plates (Including Freight up to $40) valued up to $24,849.00. If your grant award must be approved by a governing body (i.e., your city council or Board of Directors), please add this item to the agenda immediately, and contact us with the meeting date. PROCUREMENT: We will contact you no later than Friday, February 27, 2026, to initiate the procurement process. There are two possible methods for procurement, to be determined by our Foundation: •Direct Purchase made by the Foundation OR W.S. Hoopes | Sergeant Uniform Division Police Department 5925 Cove Road | Roanoke, VA 24019 (O) 540-777-8674 | (C) 540-266-2162 www.roanokecountyva.gov/police 2 • Memo of Understanding. NOTE: Our Foundation provides funding via ACH transfer only. We are unable to fund a grant award by paper check. Do not make advanced purchases until you have heard from the Foundation with the next steps. Failure to follow this process will jeopardize your grant award. If you have any fulfillment questions, please email Procurementfoundation@firehousesubs.com. PUBLIC RELATIONS (PR) NOTES • PR announcements from your organization regarding the grant award are optional. If you choose to share the good news, please use the attached press release template and/or social media post template and send it back to Foundation@firehousesubs.com for review and approval (allowing for 72 hours turnaround time). Please do not pitch or post before receiving approval from the Foundation team. Use of the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation logo: • We ask that your organization acknowledge the grant by displaying our Foundation logo on granted items/equipment whenever possible. Our Foundation logo is attached for your convenience. Please note that the final artwork will need to be approved by our Foundation via Foundation@firehousesubs.com before being displayed. Did you know? More than 70% of the funds raised for the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation come from the generosity of Firehouse Subs guests and the restaurant brand? Please consider supporting a Firehouse Subs restaurant near you. We are very excited to assist your organization and ultimately improve the lifesaving capabilities of your community. Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Deerwood North 4600 Touchton Road E, Bldg 100, Ste 300 Jacksonville, FL 32246 foundation@firehousesubs.com FirehouseSubsFoundation.org Twitter Facebook CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information and attachments contained in this electronic communication are confidential and intended only for the use of the intended recipients. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please permanently remove any copies of this message from your system and do not retain any copies, whether in electronic or physical form or otherwise. PLEASE NOTE THAT I DO NOT CONSENT TO THE ELECTRONIC/DIGITAL RECORDING OF ANY COMMUNICATIONS, INCLUDING MEETINGS, VIDEO CONFERENCES AND TELEPHONE CALLS, AND MY PARTICIPATION IN ANY MEETING, VIDEO CONFERENCE OR CALL SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS CONSENT (IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE) TO RECORDING THE COMMUNICATION. The information contained in this message may be proprietary, confidential or trade secret and may be legally privileged. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, disclosure or reproduction is strictly prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Les renseignements contenus dans ce message peuvent être de propriété exclusive, de nature privilégiée, confidentiels ou relever du secret commercial. Ce message est strictement réservé à l’usage de son ou ses destinataires. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous êtes, par la présente, informé que toute utilisation, distribution, divulgation ou reproduction est strictement interdite et peut constituer une infraction à la loi. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez communiquer avec l’expéditeur par courriel et détruire tous les exemplaires du message original. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,849 FROM FIREHOUSE SUBS PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION FOR NEW ARMOR PLATES FOR THE SWAT TEAM WHEREAS, the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation has awarded the Roanoke County Police Department a grant in the amount of $24,849 to purchase 36 Safariland armor plates from Strohman Enterprises; and WHEREAS, the grant amount represents 100% of the equipment costs, and no matching funds are required; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 2026, and the second reading was held on February 10, 2026. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1.That Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation grant in the amount of $24,849 is accepted and hereby appropriated to the County’s grant fund. 2.That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.5 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION FEMA defines "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 reduction of hazard vulnerability. The goal of mitigation is to save lives and reduce property damage. Mitigation can accomplish this, and should be cost-effective and environmentally sound. This, in turn, can reduce the enormous cost of disasters to property owners and all levels of government. In addition, mitigation can protect critical community facilities, reduce exposure to liability, and minimize community disruption. Examples of mitigation include land use planning, adoption of building codes and floodplain regulations, and acquisition or flood-proofing of flood-prone homes. 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; and 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. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the plan does not obligate the County financially or legally to accomplish any of the goals or projects contained in the plan. Please note that even though this is a "regional" plan, the goals, strategies and projects for Roanoke County are unique for Roanoke County and are outlined in the section designated specifically for Roanoke County. Accordingly, no appropriation of funds is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the resolution adopting the Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional Commission Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON JANUARY 27, 2026 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UPDATED ROANOKE VALLEY- ALLEGHANY REGIONAL COMMISSION PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN 2025 UPDATE WHEREAS the Commission recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property within the region; and WHEREAS, the Commission 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 region from the impacts of future hazards and disasters; and WHEREAS adoption by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors demonstrates its commitment to hazard mitigation and achieving the goals outlined in the Ha zard Mitigation Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, that the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, as updated in 2025, is hereby approved and adopted. HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2025 UPDATE 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. Chapter 1: The Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-10 [blank] 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 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. Chapter 2: The Regional Profile 2-3 Figure 5: Regional Topography 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. Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-5 Figure 6: NRI Social Vulnerability Rating 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 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. Chapter 2: The Regional Profile Page | 2-12 Figure 7: Regional Transportation Facilities Figure 8: Regional Transit Connections 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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\ 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, 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 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-9 Figure 12: Community Intensity Map, Roanoke County Earthquake 2021 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-10 Figure 13: Community Intensity Map, North Carolina Earthquake 2020 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) 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. 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. 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 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. 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). 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-29 ROANOKE CITY 7/23/2023 Heavy Rain - Shaferï¿½ï¿½ï¿½s 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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) 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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) 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) Chapter 3: Hazard Identification Page | 3-58 [blank] 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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 Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-9 Figure 24: Earthquake Risk Mapping, USGS 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) 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 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) 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) 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. 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 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. 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% 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 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) 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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.) 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) 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. 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. Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-30 Figure 27: Regional Critical Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Susceptible Areas. Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-31 Figure 28: Regional Vulnerable Facilities in Above-Average Landslide Susceptible Areas Chapter 4: Risk Assessment Page | 4-32 Figure 29: Landslide Susceptibility Model in the Region 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 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 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 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 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. 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) 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% 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 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. 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. 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) 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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). 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-19 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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 Chapter 5: Capabilities Assessment Page | 5-44 [blank] 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 [blank] Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.6 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 safety operations, including emergency response, search and rescue, situational awareness, and damage assessment. Acceptance of this grant would improve operational readiness, reduce cybersecurity and data-security risks, and support the continued safe and effective use of drone technology by first responders. FISCAL IMPACT: No local match is required; however, $14,000 of the current fiscal year operating budget of the Fire & Rescue department will be used towards the purchase of this equipment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting and allocating $25,000 in grant funding from the DCJS - CY26 Unmanned Aircraft Trade and Replace Program to support the replacement of unmanned aircraft systems in compliance with state and federal security requirements. 1 December 16, 2025 Mr. Richard Caywood County Administrator 5925 Cove Road Roanoke,Virginia 24018 RE: 560183-CY26 DCJS Unmanned Aircraft Trade and Replace Program Dear Mr. Richard Caywood: We are pleased to inform you that your organization has been awarded a grant under the funding opportunity listed above. Your DCJS grant award number is 561475 and was approved for a total budget of $25,000, through state funding. The project period is 1/1/2026 through 12/31/2026. Included with this letter is your Statement of Grant Award/Acceptance (SOGA), Special Conditions, Reporting Requirements, and Projected Due Dates. Please review these materials carefully. In addition, there may be Encumbrances, action items related to your grant award, that require your immediate attention. If applicable, these must be addressed and submitted through the On-line Grants Management System (OGMS) at https://ogms.dcjs.virginia.gov. We are committed to supporting you throughout the life of your grant and are available to assist in any way to help ensure your project’s success. To formally accept the award and its conditions, please sign the enclosed Statement of Grant Award/Acceptance (SOGA) and return it electronically within 60 days to grantsmgmt@dcjs.virginia.gov. If you have questions, contact your DCJS Grant Monitor Carolyn Dellorso at 804-845-1200 or via email at Carolyn.Dellorso@dcjs.virginia.gov. Sincerely, Jackson Miller Director 2 STATEMENT OF GRANT AWARD (SOGA) Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services 1100 Bank Street, 12th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 560183-CY26 DCJS Unmanned Aircraft Trade and Replace Program Please note grant awards are contingent on the availability of funding. Roanoke, County 561475 GX4HPU2KPHE3 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 Jeremy Newman Captain 5925 Cove Road Roanoke, Virginia 24019 540-777-8701 jnewman@roanokecountyva.gov County Administrator 5925 Cove Road Roanoke, Virginia 24018 540-776-7190 rcaywood@roanokecountyva.gov Financial Analyst 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 540-283-8137 jpegram@roanokecountyva.gov *If applicable, please indicate your ICR in the space provided and attach written documentation. As the duly authorized representative, the undersigned, having received the Statement of Grant Awards (SOGA) and reviewing the Special Conditions, hereby accepts this grant and agrees to the conditions and provisions of all other Federal and State laws and rules and regulations that apply to this award. If there has been a change in an authorized official, cross out the information on the document and write the new contact information. Do not electronically alter this document. Authorized Official (Project Administrator) Capital Unappropriated % of Board Expenditure Balance Revenues Contingency Contingency Reserves Unaudited balance as of June 30, 2025 31,213,980$ -$ -$ 613,094$ Approved Sources: Appropriated from 2025-26 budget (Ordinance 052725-2) - 50,000 - 1,420,700 Addition from 2024-25 close out and reimbursements of completed projects - - - 147,219 Appropriated from 2025-26 budget (Ordinance 121625-5) 1,448,997 680,479 Approved Uses: Appropriated from 2025-26 budget (Ordinance 052725-2) - - - (1,746,047) Items for Brian Epperley memorial - (1,282) - - Balance at January 27, 2026 32,662,977$ 12.0% 48,718$ 680,479$ 434,966$ County of Roanoke Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency, and Capital Reserves Fiscal Year 2025-2026 General Government Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows: Unaudited Outstanding Outstanding June 30, 2025 Additions Deletions January 27, 2026 Debt type: VPSA School Bonds 109,321,388$ -$ 7,026,556$ 102,294,832$ Lease Revenue Bonds 72,515,000 20,040,000 4,715,000 87,840,000 Temporary Literary Loans*31,674,051 25,166,954 - 56,841,005 Subtotal 213,510,439 45,206,954 11,741,556 246,975,837 Premiums 13,244,796 1,709,584 - 14,954,380 226,755,235$ 46,916,538$ 11,741,556$ 261,930,217$ Summary by entity: County 77,345,868$ 21,749,584$ 4,715,000$ 94,380,452$ 36.03% Schools 149,409,367 25,166,954 7,026,556 167,549,765 63.97% 100.00% * The County has been approved for $75 million in Literary Loans. This amount will not be turned into permanent loans until all monies are drawn down for the three school projects approved for funding which are: Glen Cove and W.E. Cundiff Elementary Schools and the Roanoke County Career and Technology Center Submitted By Laurie L. Gearheart Chief Financial Officer Approved By Richard L. Caywood County Administrator Real Estate Taxes $129,080,327 $62,196,021 48.18% $135,025,000 $64,582,896 47.83% $2,386,876 3.70% Personal Property Taxes 44,500,000 2,757,145 6.20% 48,000,000 2,915,135 6.07% 157,989 5.42% Public Service Corp Base 5,500,000 5,812,954 105.69% 6,000,000 8,238,288 137.30% 2,425,334 29.44% Penalties & Interest on Property Taxes 1,350,000 538,525 39.89% 1,330,000 533,324 40.10% (5,201) -0.98% Payment In Lieu Of Taxes 225,000 44,775 19.90% 170,000 35,372 20.81% (9,404) -26.59% Communication Taxes 2,625,000 1,055,471 40.21% 2,500,000 1,045,931 41.84% (9,540) -0.91% Local Sales Tax 17,000,000 6,584,909 38.73% 17,242,500 7,061,550 40.95% 476,642 6.75% Consumer Utility Tax 3,750,000 1,670,682 44.55% 3,750,000 1,517,196 40.46% (153,486) -10.12% Business License Tax 9,100,000 363,816 4.00% 9,614,000 467,833 4.87% 104,017 22.23% Franchise Tax 750,000 0 0.00% 850,000 112 0.01% 112 100.00% Motor Vehicle License Fees 2,450,000 331,732 13.54% 2,475,000 366,575 14.81% 34,843 9.50% Taxes On Recordation & Wills 1,550,000 632,977 40.84% 1,450,000 749,663 51.70% 116,687 15.57% Utility License Tax 565,000 139,082 24.62% 555,000 170,641 30.75% 31,559 18.49% Hotel & Motel Room Taxes 2,050,000 801,944 39.12% 2,250,000 794,588 35.32% (7,356) -0.93% Taxes - Prepared Foods 6,450,000 2,661,709 41.27% 6,700,000 2,904,245 43.35% 242,536 8.35% Other Taxes 1,355,000 411,307 30.35% 1,180,000 325,910 27.62% (85,397) -26.20% Animal Control Fees 42,500 9,995 23.52% 42,500 22,725 53.47% 12,730 56.02% Land and Building Fees 18,000 5,969 33.16% 18,650 9,486 50.86% 3,517 37.07% Permits 1,112,872 395,836 35.57% 1,119,040 436,057 38.97% 40,221 9.22% Fees 64,600 19,727 30.54% 64,600 40,347 62.46% 20,620 51.11% Clerk of Court Fees 127,000 65,609 51.66% 155,000 57,968 37.40% (7,641) -13.18% Photocopy Charges 210 0 0.00% 210 0 0.00%0 0.00% Fines and Forfeitures 558,500 206,550 36.98% 500,000 159,523 31.90% (47,027) -29.48% Revenues from Use of Money 1,229,586 612,594 49.82% 1,184,745 427,890 36.12% (184,705) -43.17% Revenues From Use of Property 185,014 85,557 46.24% 165,254 66,363 40.16% (19,194) -28.92% General Fund - C100 For the Six Months Ending Wednesday, December 31, 2025 Charges for Services 4,145,100 2,120,965 51.17% 4,725,100 1,953,914 41.35% (167,052) -8.55% Charges for Public Services 80,000 30 0.04% 80,000 (1,822) -2.28% (1,852) 101.65% Education Aid-State 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Reimb-Shared Programs Salem 1,396,800 271,392 19.43% 1,663,301 421,150 25.32% 149,758 35.56% Miscellaneous Revenue 304,200 145,884 47.96% 309,000 186,122 60.23% 40,238 21.62% Recovered Costs 1,050,000 603,955 57.52% 975,000 553,596 56.78% (50,359) -9.10% Non-Categorical Aid 418,000 1,027,481 245.81% 418,000 1,057,247 252.93% 29,766 2.82% Shared Expenses 6,371,084 2,812,453 44.14% 7,058,115 3,038,565 43.05% 226,112 7.44% Welfare & Social Services-Categorical 5,425,000 2,214,770 40.83% 5,035,263 2,262,080 44.92% 47,310 2.09% Other State Categorical Aid 2,523,710 1,344,781 53.29% 2,659,630 1,344,260 50.54% (521) -0.04% Welfare & Social Services 6,765,000 3,362,116 49.70% 6,950,000 3,689,653 53.09% 327,538 8.88% Education Aid-Federal 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Other Categorical Aid 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Other Financing Sources 33,487,987 0 0.00% 36,047,419 0 0.00%0 0.00% Transfers 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% General Fund - C100 For the Six Months Ending Wednesday, December 31, 2025 Legislative 275,874 186,584 67.63% 304,690 146,939 48.23% 15,359 10.45% General & Financial Administration 10,707,832 5,241,791 48.95% 11,337,608 5,709,657 50.36% 464,518 8.19% Electoral Board & Officials 1,038,250 503,913 48.53% 1,063,002 437,838 41.19% (65,991) -15.13% Courts 1,937,153 851,409 43.95% 1,969,638 918,065 46.61% 64,660 7.06% Other Judicial Support 1,821,753 913,377 50.14% 1,882,399 992,386 52.72% 79,009 7.96% Law Enforcement & Traffic Cont 20,591,508 10,669,418 51.81% 22,246,995 11,053,559 49.69% 396,623 3.59% Fire and Rescue 25,972,455 13,203,766 50.84% 27,821,869 14,334,282 51.52% 1,323,586 9.25% Correction & Detention 12,868,428 5,744,396 44.64% 12,922,475 5,915,999 45.78% 169,911 2.88% Animal Control 1,307,776 638,390 48.81% 1,405,546 611,214 43.49% (27,176) -4.45% General Services Administration 1,431,285 730,821 51.06% 1,527,847 768,168 50.28% 46,026 5.99% Refuse Disposal 6,233,165 3,089,816 49.57% 6,382,690 3,098,312 48.54% 19,336 0.63% Maint Buildings & Grounds 5,884,371 2,871,221 48.79% 6,238,435 3,043,717 48.79% 171,037 5.66% Engineering 2,862,027 1,242,119 43.40% 2,938,494 1,516,923 51.62% 273,374 18.04% Inspections 1,135,510 594,289 52.34% 1,201,907 579,779 48.24% (14,510) -2.50% Garage Complex 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Mental Health 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Public Health 767,419 551,276 71.84% 805,790 589,143 73.11% 37,867 6.43% Social Services Administration 10,890,884 5,104,629 46.87% 11,057,574 5,945,908 53.77% 822,079 13.87% Comprehensive Services Act 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Public Assistance 4,918,666 2,403,100 48.86% 5,187,550 2,345,968 45.22% (57,132) -2.44% Social Services Organizations 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Parks & Recreation 3,099,387 1,579,144 50.95% 3,114,532 1,689,388 54.24% 110,830 6.60% Library 5,230,613 2,412,683 46.13% 5,333,635 2,603,702 48.82% 200,470 7.71% Cultural Enrichment 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Planning & Zoning 2,007,941 874,332 43.54% 1,983,226 878,351 44.29% 8,136 0.97% Cooperative Extension Program 145,391 23,213 15.97% 145,391 21,565 14.83% (1,648) -7.64% Economic Development 718,907 391,948 54.52% 747,058 431,465 57.76% 39,932 9.59% Public Transportation 510,000 202,973 39.80% 510,000 53,389 10.47% (149,583) -280.17% Contribution to Human Service Organizations 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% General Fund - C100 For the Six Months Ending Wednesday, December 31, 2025 Employee Benefits 2,925,437 808,020 27.62% 3,922,809 894,467 22.80% 121,024 13.53% Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup 62,700 28,736 45.83% 62,700 19,770 31.53% (8,966) -45.35% Miscellaneous 10,683,516 6,198,212 58.02% 11,324,859 5,236,493 46.24% (961,719) -18.37% Tax Relief/Elderly & Handicapp 1,694,060 1,091,533 64.43%0 0 0.00% (1,091,533) 0.00% Refuse Credit Vinton 225,000 56,250 25.00% 225,000 60,665 26.96% 4,415 7.28% Board Contingency 32,542,525 0 0.00% 33,542,177 0 0.00%0 0.00% Unappropriated Balance 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Interfund Transfers Out 116,861,844 64,881,559 55.52% 122,689,594 67,416,180 54.95% 2,534,621 3.76% Intrafund Transfers Out 6,253,812 2,205,682 35.27% 8,366,836 6,517,280 77.89% 4,311,598 66.16% General Fund - C100 For the Six Months Ending Wednesday, December 31, 2025 ACTION NO. _______________ ITEM NO. __________________ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 27, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid – December 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Laurie L. Gearheart Chief Financial Officer APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors -$ -$ 14,186,181.13$ Payroll 12/05/25 2,334,320.00 31,944.52 2,366,264.52 Payroll 12/19/25 2,127,539.57 15,520.08 2,143,059.65 Manual Checks - - - Grand Total 18,695,505.30$ A detailed listing of the payments to vendors is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. ACTION NO.___________________ ITEM NUMBER_______________ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. : January 27, 2026 : Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of 31-Dec-25 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CASH INVESTMENT: JP MORGAN 8,203,526.59 HOMETRUST 2,719,023.58 10,922,550.17 GOVERNMENT: TRUIST ROA CONTRA (3,820.00) TRUIST ROA 4,000,000.00 ROCKEFELLER CONTRA (1,980.00) ROCKEFELLER 4,000,000.00 7,994,200.00 LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION 38,790,495.47 ROCO EMA PORTFOLIO 1,137,042.01 ROCO EMA PORTFOLIO CONTRA 28,096.49 VA MINT 5,104,590.62 45,060,224.59 MONEY MARKET: ATLANTIC UNION BANK 5,026,429.87 HOMETRUST BANK 4,511,967.19 TRUIST ROA 1,977,738.06 ROCKEFELLER 30,762,038.31 42,278,173.43 PUBLIC FUNDS: BANK OF BOTETOURT 7,995,438.51 7,995,438.51 TOTAL 114,250,586.70 01-27-2026 Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. I.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 27, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors fiscal year 2025-2026 mid-year revenues and expenditures SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart Chief Financial Officer APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Review fiscal year 2025-2026 mid-year (through December 31, 2025) revenues and expenditures BACKGROUND: Per section 4-1 Item C and section 4-5 of the Comprehensive Financial Policy, in January of each year, County staff will provide information to the Board on a mid -year update of current year revenues and expenditures as relates to the adopted budget. The attached presentation provides information on revenues and expenditures through the second quarter (December 31, 2025) of fiscal year 2025-2026. DISCUSSION: This time has been scheduled to discuss fiscal year 2025 -2026 mid-year revenues and expenditures. The attached PowerPoint presentation will be shown. Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of the attached presentation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors receive information regarding fiscal year 2025-2026 mid-year revenues and expenditures. FY 2026 Mid-Year Review of General Government Revenues and Expenditures Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session January 27, 2026 FY 2026 General Government Revenue Collection Summary 2 Category Date(s)/Period of Collection % of Total Budget Real Estate 1st Half in December (CY 2025), 2nd Half in June (CY 2026)*49.6% Personal Property Receive in May-June, billed annually 17.6% Sales Tax Receive monthly,2 months delay 6.3% Business License Receive in February -March annually 3.5% Hotel/Motel Tax Receive quarterly, some received monthly 0.8% Meals Receive monthly, 1 month delay 2.5% * 1st Half of Real Estate based on CY 2025 Assessment, 2nd Half based on CY 2026 Assessment finalized in January 2026 FY 2026 General Government Revenue Budget 3 $205.8 $215.5 $232.1 $253.5 $266.0 $194.2 $201.3 $227.2 $252.4 $260.5 $272.5 $180 $190 $200 $210 $220 $230 $240 $250 $260 $270 $280 $290 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 Mi l l i o n s Total General Government Revenue FY 2021 through FY 2026 Actual Revenue Adopted/Amended Budget Real Estate Taxes 49.6% Personal Property Taxes 17.6%Other Local Taxes and Fees 11.5% Intergovernmental 8.1% Sales Tax 6.3% Business License 3.5% Communications Tax 0.9%Meals Tax 2.5% FY 2026 Amended General Government Revenue Budget, Net Beginning Balance $272,462,508 Mid-Year Actual Revenue Comparison –General Government 4 1Other Local Taxes and Fees includes: Other Property Taxes, Consumer Utility, Bank Franchise, Motor Vehicle License, Recordation and Conveyance, Other Local Taxes, 2Other Non-Shared Revenue includes: Permits, Fees, & Licenses, Fines and Forfeitures, Use of Money and Property, Charges for Services, Recovered Costs, and Miscellaneous Revenue Category FY 2026 Budget 1st Half FY 2026 Percent of Budget Received Real Estate 135,025,000 64,582,897 47.83% Personal Property 48,000,000 3,680,764 7.67% Other Local Taxes and Fees1 17,760,000 11,937,081 67.21% Sales Tax 17,242,500 7,061,550 40.95% Business License 9,614,000 467,833 4.87% Communications Tax 2,500,000 1,045,931 41.84% Hotel/Motel Tax 2,250,000 794,588 35.32% Meals 6,700,000 2,904,245 43.35% Intergovernmental 22,121,008 10,626,176 48.04% Other Non-Shared Revenue2 11,250,000 4,333,317 38.52% Total 39.43% FY 2026 Revenue Trends 5 Actual Budget Projection $100.46 $105.64 $113.35 $121.53 $130.04 $135.03 $136.03 $100 $110 $120 $130 $140 FY 2021 Actual FY 2022 Actual FY 2023 Actual FY 2024 Actual FY 2025 Actual FY 2026 Budget/ Projection $ i n M i l l i o n s Real Estate Revenue FY 2021 to FY 2026 $37.16 $36.81 $41.10 $45.39 $47.09 $48.00 $48.00 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 FY 2021 Actual FY 2022 Actual FY 2023 Actual FY 2024 Actual FY 2025 Actual FY 2026 Budget/ Projection $ i n M i l l i o n s Personal Property Revenue FY 2021 to FY 2026 FY 2026 Revenue Trends 6 $12.94 $14.15 $15.16 $15.79 $16.11 $17.24 $16.64 $12 $13 $14 $15 $16 $17 $18 FY 2021 Actual FY 2022 Actual FY 2023 Actual FY 2024 Actual FY 2025 Actual FY 2026 Budget/ Projection $ i n M i l l i o n s Sales Tax Revenue FY 2021 to FY 2026 $6.96 $7.76 $8.66 $9.00 $9.13 $9.61 $9.25 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 FY 2021 Actual FY 2022 Actual FY 2023 Actual FY 2024 Actual FY 2025 Actual FY 2026 Budget/ Projection BPOL Revenue FY 2021 to FY 2026 FY 2026 Revenue Trends 7 $1.09 $1.69 $1.86 $2.16 $2.30 $2.25 $2.50 $- $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 FY 2021 Actual FY 2022 Actual FY 2023 Actual FY 2024 Actual FY 2025 Actual FY 2026 Budget/ Projection $ i n M i l l i o n s Hotel/Motel Revenue FY 2021 to FY 2026 $4.55 $5.31 $5.96 $6.36 $6.49 $6.70 $6.72 $4.0 $4.5 $5.0 $5.5 $6.0 $6.5 $7.0 FY 2021 Actual FY 2022 Actual FY 2023 Actual FY 2024 Actual FY 2025 Actual FY 2026 Budget/ Projection $ i n M i l l i o n s Meals Tax Revenue FY 2021 to FY 2026 FY 2026 General Government Revenue Summary •Overall revenues are currently trending above budget but the rate ofgrowth has slowed compared to recent years •MVP revenue contributes significantly to projected FY 2026 revenuesurplus in Current Public Service Corporation Tax •Projections are based on trends seen to date and may fluctuate as moredata becomes available •Staff continue to monitor trends in the economy and potential affects oncurrent year revenues 8 Mid-Year Actual Expenditure –General Government 9 •Transfers anticipated to expend entire budget *Note:Actuals are through December 31, 2025 Category FY 2026 Budget FY 2026 Actual + Encumbrances* FY 2026 Remaining Balance % of Budget Spent Personnel $100,524,113 49,199,508 51,324,605 48.94% Non-Personnel/Encumbrances 40,212,337 19,703,038 20,509,299 49.00% Transfers & Other 131,726,058 74,910,160 56,815,898 56.87% Total $272,462,508 143,812,706 128,649,802 52.78% FY 2026 General Government Expenditure Summary •Personnel is currently on target but projections are higher due to overtime costs •Non-Personnel operating expenditures such as contracted repairs, vehicle maintenance, and utilities continue to trend above budget 10 11 Next Steps Item 2026 Date Work Session –FY 2027 –2036 Capital Improvement Program February 10 Work Session –FY 2026 –2027 Revenue Outlook; County Fees & Charges Compendium February 24 Public Hearing on Effective Tax Rate March 10 Briefing –County Administrator’s Proposed FY 2026 –2027 Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program March 24 Public Hearing to Adopt 2026 Tax Rates Work Session –Proposed FY 2027 Operating Budget (first of two) if necessary April 7 Public Hearing: Operating and Capital Budgets (first of two) Work Session –Proposed FY 2027 Operating Budget (second of two) if necessary April 28 Public Hearing: Operating and Capital Budgets (second of two) First Reading of FY 2026-2027 Operating and Capital Budget Ordinances May 12 Second reading of FY 2026-2027 Operating and Capital Budget Ordinances Resolution to approve Operating and Capital budgets, Revenues and Expenditures for County and Schools May 26 Questions 12 Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. I.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 27, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the real estate assessment process SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart Chief Financial Officer APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Time has been set aside to review the real estate assessment process AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2026 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies; and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Page 1 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 27, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Katie Gray (on behalf of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust) to amend a special use permit condition regarding the architectural plans including exterior materials and colors for the Clearbrook Walmart on approximately 29.97 acres of land zoned C-2S, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District, located at 5350 Clearbrook Village Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to amend a special use permit condition for the Clearbrook Walmart on land zoned commercial and Clearbrook Village Overlay District. BACKGROUND: In October 2006, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance which rezoned 4.1 acres from AR, Agricultural/Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District, and approved a special use permit for a retail sales establishment greater than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area, a garden center, and minor automobile repair facility on approximately 41 acres for the construction of the Clearbrook Walmart. The approved special use permit included nine (9) conditions. One of the conditions requires “all buildings on the 41 +/- acre site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural plans, including specific exterior materials and colors, prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated October 13, 2006.” Page 2 of 3 In December 2009, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance to amend some of the special use permit conditions approved in 2006 dealing with exterior building colors and sign panel colors, and to increase the maximum size of a monument sign. The amended condition regarding exterior building colors states: • “All buildings on the 41 +/- acre site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural plans, including exterior materials and colors, prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated September 30, 2009, entitled “#1301-02 Roanoke, VA Exterior Elevations – Proposed Color Scheme.” Since the applicant (on behalf of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust) is proposing new exterior building colors that are not in substantial conformance with the 2009 architectural plans, that special use permit condition must be amended to change the exterior building colors. The process to amend a special use permit condition is to go through the special use permit process. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this petition on January 6, 2026. Four (4) citizens spoke in opposition to the request during the public hearing. The concerns/issues raised included: dark and unpleasant color scheme; lighting; proposed color scheme would be an eyesore; proposed color scheme would be another impact to the neighborhood which includes tractor trailer traffic and noisy trash compactors in the morning; the reason behind the Clearbrook Overlay was to create a community look by keeping the area's color scheme of earth tones and keep it from being an eyesore; and Clearbrook community came together to ensure it would look a certain way, and if Walmart wants to be part of their community it needs to conform to the standards in place. The Planning Commission discussed: the history of the Walmart project; architectural renderings and building color schemes from 2006, 2009, and 2026; Clearbrook Village Overlay district standards; Clearbrook Village design guidelines; the special use permit conditions; Walmart branding; lighting; signage; significant citizen involvement in creating the Clearbrook Overlay District and design guidelines on what the community would look like in the future; and the amount of time and input spent on original Walmart application including architectural renderings and color scheme. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the special use permit request to amend a special use permit condition regarding the architectural plans including exterior materials and colors for the Clearbrook Walmart. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Page 3 of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the special use permit request to amend a special use permit condition regarding the architectural plans including exterior materials and colors for the Clearbrook Walmart on approximately 29.97 acres of land zoned C-2S, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District. STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Katie Gray (on behalf of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust) Request: Amend a special use permit condition regarding the architectural plans including exterior materials and colors for the Clearbrook Walmart on approximately 29.97 acres of land zoned C-2S, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, and Location: Tax Parcel: 5350 Clearbrook Village Lane #088.03-01-09.00-0000 Suggested Amended Condition: Note: 2. All buildings on the 41 +/- acre site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural plans, including exterior materials and colors, prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated September 30, 2009, entitled “#1301-02 Roanoke, VA Exterior Elevations – Proposed Color Scheme”. WD Partners, dated 06/23/25, entitled “Exterior Elevations—A2”. All other special use permit conditions would remain in place. Katie Gray (on behalf of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust) is requesting to amend a special use permit condition regarding the architectural plans including exterior materials and colors for the Clearbrook Walmart on approximately 29.97 acres of land zoned C-2S, High Intensity Commercial District, with conditions, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District, located at 5450 Clearbrook Village Lane, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. The proposed project would change the proposed color scheme to the building facades of the existing Clearbrook Walmart. The Roanoke County 200 Plan indicates the future land use of this property is Core. Core is a future land use designation where high-intensity urban development is encouraged, and the current use of property, which is large- scale retail, is considered a compatible use under this use designation. The Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December 2000. The Design Guidelines are a policy document that provides guidance and establishes standards for site layout, architectural treatments, landscaping, lighting, and signage in the Clearbrook area. The Design Guidelines are a tool for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors during review of rezoning and special use permit petitions. Some of the guidelines related to landscaping, signage, building height, lot coverage, lighting, parking, and utilities were incorporated into the Clearbrook Village Overlay District zoning regulations. Other guidelines, such as those for site layout and architectural treatment, are beneficial for legislative review of significant retail developments and were used during the design process of the original building. The proposed change to the building’s exterior paint colors is not consistent with the Clearbrook Village design guidelines. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS In October 2006, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance which rezoned 4.1 acres from AR, Agricultural/Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District, and approved a special use permit for a retail sales establishment greater than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area, a garden center, and minor automobile repair facility on approximately 41 acres for the construction of the Clearbrook Walmart. The approved special use permit included nine (9) conditions. One of the conditions requires “all buildings on the 41 +/- acre site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural plans, including specific exterior materials and colors, prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated October 13, 2006.” (Ordinance 102406-7 and plan attached). In December 2009, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance to amend some of the special use permit conditions approved in 2006 dealing with exterior building colors and sign panel colors, and to increase the maximum size of a monument sign. The amended condition regarding exterior building colors states: • “All buildings on the 41 +/- acre site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural plans, including exterior materials and colors, prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated September 30, 2009, entitled “#1301-02 Roanoke, VA Exterior Elevations – Proposed Color Scheme.” Since the applicant (on behalf of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust) is proposing new exterior building colors that are not in substantial conformance with the 2009 architectural plans, that special use permit condition must be amended to change the exterior building colors. The process to amend a special use permit condition is to go through the special use permit process. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background - In the spring of 2000, County staff began to work with the residents of Clearbrook to prepare detailed planning and zoning standards for the community. With the guidance and assistance of a committee of Clearbrook residents and business owners, County staff prepared a policy document of design guidelines to be included in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, plus an overlay zoning district to supplement the underlying zoning district. In December 2000, the Board of Supervisors amended the County’s comprehensive plan to include the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District. The Board of Supervisors also amended the zoning ordinance to include the text of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District (CVOD). At the same time, the Board of Supervisors rezoned approximately 133 acres to C-2 and the Clearbrook Village Overlay District. In October 2006, Roanoke County approved a rezoning and special use permit for Holrob Investments, LLC’s proposal to build a 203,819-square-foot retail anchor store (Walmart) and two 16,000-square-foot buildings. One of the special use permit conditions was substantial conformance to an exterior elevation drafted by Perkowitz & Ruth. The document referred to specific Sherwin-Williams paint color numbers. In 2009, Wal-Mart sought amendments to the special use permit conditions regarding a new sign and amendments to its building's exterior elevation. The paint colors generally stayed the same as in the 2006 document, with descriptive paint names rather than color numbers. However, the color scheme was essentially unchanged from the proposed 2006 colors. One of the reasons given for this change was that the specified colors from 2006 had been discontinued and were no longer available. The Clearbrook Walmart was constructed in 2010. Surrounding Neighborhood – Properties to the south and west are zoned C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District. Land uses to the south include a vacant tract and a vacant medical Elementary School, and a retail establishment. Several automobile sales businesses are located across Stable Road to the west and northwest. Properties to the north are zoned AR, Agricultural/Residential District, and contain single family homes and a church. These homes and the church are located on Stable Road and Singing Hills Road. The Blue Ridge Parkway right-of-way adjoins the rear (north) of the Singing Hills Road neighbors. At its closest point, the Parkway road is approximately 900 feet from the northern boundary of the site. Properties to the east are zoned C-2 and CVOD, and AR, and include vacant land and single family homes. Community Outreach – Approximately 84 letters were sent to adjoining property owners and tenants which contained the request, information about the subject parcels, instructions for how to submit comments and contact information for staff. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT In November 2025, the applicant, Katie Gray (on behalf of Walmart) submitted plans for a 7,000+ square foot addition as well as changing the exterior building color scheme. The proposed addition, which is not part of this special use permit, is in conformance with the existing special use permit condition dealing with site plan conformance. However, the exterior finishes proposed in the submitted plans are not in conformance with the existing special use permit condition dealing with exterior elevations color scheme. The applicant is proposing to change the building colors from tans and browns to brown, gray, and blue to align with the branding of its other Walmart stores. As this property is subject to the Clearbrook Village design guidelines, any amendment made to this SUP must also comply with the design guidelines, which dictate the following: “materials for harmony with the chosen buildings located within the project area. Exterior materials such as exposed standard concrete block, metal, or brightly colored siding will not be allowed. Materials shall be in the range of earth tones.” 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Roanoke County 200 Plan indicates that the Future Land Use Designation of this parcel is Core. Core areas are where high-intensity urban development is encouraged. Core areas may be appropriate for larger-scale highway- oriented retail uses and regionally based shopping facilities. Planned shopping centers and clustered retail uses are encouraged in the core areas. The existing Clearbrook Walmart is consistent with the Core future land use designation. The Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2000. The Design Guidelines are a policy document that provides guidance and establishes standards for site layout, architectural treatments, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The Design Guidelines are a tool for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors during review of rezoning and special use permit petitions. The existing building, when in design, was modified to include greater variation in the rear elevation roofline and to show the required foundation and landscape planting along the front building façade. The proposed development was generally consistent with the goals, objectives, and guidelines outlined in the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District. This included a brown-and-tan paint scheme, and while a new color scheme was approved in 2009, it was substantially the same as the 2006 exterior plans. The colors were no longer specific paint color numbers. They were changed to a more descriptive coloration because there were issues with specific paint color discontinuation. The submitted exterior elevation in this application deviates noticeably from the document referenced in the existing 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The proposed exterior elevation drawings depart substantially from color schemes, approved in 2006 and revised in 2009. Staff’s interpretation of the Clearbrook Village design guidelines is that the proposed exterior is not consistent with them. According to the design guidelines, the building exterior should be “materials for harmony with the chosen buildings located within the project area. Exterior materials such as exposed standard concrete block, metal, or brightly colored siding will not be allowed. Materials shall be in the range of earth tones.” Merriam-Webster, the Cambridge Dictionary, and several other reputable dictionaries define earth tones as “any of various rich colors containing some brown.” The proposed façade changes, particularly the heavy flashes of bright blue, appear to conflict with the intent of these guidelines, which is to preserve the viewshed from the Blue Ridge Parkway and maintain the village's rural character through a targeted design aesthetic. Staff do not believe the proposed colors align with the design guidelines. However, if the Planning Commission decides to approve the special use permit with the revised exterior building colors, staff would propose the following amended condition: 2. All buildings on the 41 +/- acre site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural plans, including exterior materials and colors, prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated September 30, 2009, entitled “#1301-02 Roanoke, VA Exterior Elevations – Proposed Color Scheme”. WD Partners, dated 06/23/25, entitled “Exterior Elevations—A2”. CASE NUMBER: #1-1/2026 PREPARED BY: Summer Bork HEARING DATES: PC: January 6, 2026 BOS: January 27, 2026 ATTACHMENTS: Application Materials Maps (Aerial, Zoning, Future Land Use) Photographs Ordinance 102406-7 Ordinance 121509-10 C-2 Regulations CVOD Regulations Clearbrook Village Overlay District Design Guidelines Core Future Land Use Designation Page 1 of 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2009 ORDINANCE 121509-10 TO OBTAIN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND CONDTIONS REGARDING EXTERIOR BUILDING COLORS AND SIGN PANEL COLORS, AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF A MONUMENT SIGN IN A C-2/CVODS, GENERAL COMMERCIAL/CLEARBROOK OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON APPROXIMATELY 41 ACRES LOCATED IN THE 5200 BLOCK OF FRANKLIN ROAD, STABLE ROAD, CLEARBROOK LANE, SINGING HILLS ROAD, AND SUNSET DRIVE, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST WHEREAS, Ordinance 102406-7 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 2006 rezoned approximately 4.1 acres from AR, Agricultural Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District, and granted a Special Use Permit with conditions to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to operate a retail sales establishment with a gross floor area greater than 50,000 square feet, garden center, and minor automobile repair facility on approximately 41 acres located in the 5200 block of Franklin Road; and WHEREAS, Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust has petitioned the County for approval of certain amendments to the Special Use Permit conditions imposed by the above ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 2009 and the second reading and public hearing were held December 15, 2009; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 14, 2009; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as Page 2 of 4 follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit with the following amended conditions to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to operate a retail sales establishment with gross floor area greater than 50,000 square feet, garden center, and minor automobile repair facility on approximately 41 acres as described in Exhibit B attached to ordinance 102406-7 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 2006, and located in the 5200 block of Franklin Road, Stable Road, Clearbrook Lane, Singing Hills Road and Sunset Drive (Tax Map Numbers 88.04-1-35, 88.03-1-9, 88.03-1-4.1, 88.03- 1-2, 88.04-1-38, 88.04-1-41, 88.04-1-36, 88.04-1-34, 88.03-1-1.3, 88.04-1-26, 88.03-1-6, 88.03-1-3, 88.03-1-1.1, 88.04-1-39, 88.04-1-40, 88.04-1-39.1, and 88.03-1-1.2) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The Board also finds that this proposal as modified by the following conditions conforms to the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District, and that any adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood or community shall be minimized by the following conditions. The special use permit is hereby approved with the following AMENDED conditions: 1) The 41 +/- acre site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan prepared by Wolverton & Associates, dated October 13, 2006. 2) All buildings on the 41 +/- acre site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural plans, including exterior materials and colors, prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated September 30, 2009, entitled “#1301-02 Roanoke, VA Exterior Elevations – Proposed Color Scheme”. 3) All roof top mechanical and other equipment shall be screened from view from the Blue Ridge Parkway and U.S. Rt. 220. 4) All retaining walls shall have a maximum height of 12 feet and shall match the Page 3 of 4 exterior material “Quick Brick” and color “Heritage” as shown on the architectural plans prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated October 13, 2006. Retaining walls within any required buffer yard shall not exceed 4 feet. 5) All freestanding signs shall be monument style with a maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum width of 10 feet. The monument sign, exclusive of the sign panels to be installed thereon, shall be constructed with materials and colors that match the buildings, per the architectural plans prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated September 30, 2009, entitled “#1301-02 Roanoke, VA Exterior Elevations – Proposed Color Scheme.” The tenant panels shall remain Camel Brown until utilized by a tenant, at which time the background shall be white. 6) The 41 +/- acre site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the landscaping plan prepared by Hill Studio, dated 9/26/06, and including the specific details shown on the “Singing Hills Rd Landscape Buffer” plan prepared by Hill Studio, dated October 13, 2006. 7) Construction entrance shall be located at the Clearbrook Village Lane entrance as shown on the site plan prepared by Wolverton & Associates, dated October 13, 2006. All construction traffic shall use Clearbrook Village Lane. 8) The applicant/developer shall be responsible for constructing reasonable and necessary off-site improvements to the public road system the need for which is substantially generated and reasonably required by the development. 9) The Route 220/Stable Road intersection and the new Stable Road alignment depicted on the site plan prepared by Wolverton & Associates dated October 13, 2006 will be modified so that: a. The northernmost access to Stable Road located at the rear of the Anchor 1 building will be eliminated. b. Subject to VDOT approval, the Stable Road intersection will be redesigned to safely separate neighborhood and commercial traffic with the traffic engineer for the Singing Hills Road and Stable Road residents having an opportunity for input in the redesign. c. Trucks servicing the development on this 41 +/- acre site shall not use Stable Road for ingress and egress. 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 P49EP49E P49E P49E NEW SIGN, CAP & CORNICE COLUMNS ALL SIDES, TYP NEW SIGN, P49E COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYP TYP P218E 26 ' - 0 " P49E NEW SIGN, CAP & CORNICE CAP & CORNICE TYP TYP TYP P49E P49E TYP TYP TYP CAP & CORNICE P49E P49E P49E TYP SOFFIT & RETURN COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYP P49E NEW SIGN, NEW SIGN, TYP CL P49E CAP & CORNICE P49EP49EP49EP49ENEW SIGN, P49E CAP & CORNICE CAP & CORNICE P49E TRIM, TYP TYP P218E DOOR TYP 100'-0" FF EL 100'-0" FF EL 128'-0" TOM 126'-8" TOM REF 8 -A2.1REF 5 -A2.1 DOOR P49E CAP & CORNICE TYP P49EP49E TYP 13 ' - 3 " P49E TYP P49E TYPTYP P49EP49E TYP NEW SIGN, REF 10 -A2.1 EQ EQ CL REF 6 -A2.1 EXISTING QUIK-BRIK TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP TYP HATCH AREA INDICATES EIFS RESURFACING , REF EIFS SPECIFICATION. DARK LINE INDICATES THE EXTENT OF EIFS RESURFACING EXISTING GARDEN CENTER ORNAMENTAL FENCE AND MODULAR RACK SYSTEM SHOWN IN DASHED LINES FOR CLARITY PAINT ORNAMENTAL FENCING AT ALL LOCATIONSP36E P49E P49E TYP EXISTING ROOF TILE TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP HATCH AREA INDICATES EIFS RESURFACING , REF EIFS SPECIFICATION. DARK LINE INDICATES THE EXTENT OF EIFS RESURFACING REF 2 -A2.1 26 ' - 0 " CL NEW SIGN CENTERED ABOVE DOOR, REF 7 -A2.1 P49EP49E P49E COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYP P49E CAP & CORNICE P49E CAP P49E CAP & CORNICEREF 1 -A2.1 2'-9 3/8"2'-9 3/8" 7' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " F V 16 ' - 7 " F V 49'-5" FV P49E CAP & CORNICE P218E P49E CAP & CORNICE CAP P49E COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYP HATCH AREA INDICATES EIFS RESURFACING , REF EIFS SPECIFICATION. DOOR DARK LINE INDICATES THE EXTENT OF EIFS RESURFACING P49E DOOR REF 3 -A2.1CL P49EP49E SOFFIT & RETURNS HATCH AREA INDICATES EIFS RESURFACING , REF EIFS SPECIFICATION. DARK LINE INDICATES THE EXTENT OF EIFS RESURFACING CAP P49E EXISTING TENANT SIGN TO REMAIN EQ EQ CL EQ CL CAP & CORNICE EXISTING QUIK-BRIK TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP 37'-4" FV EXISTING CONCRETE SILL TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP P49E NEW SIGN, REF 4 -A2.1 P49E P49EP49EP49E TRIM, TYP P49E P49E P49E HATCH AREA INDICATES EIFS RESURFACING , REF EIFS SPECIFICATION. DARK LINE INDICATES THE EXTENT OF EIFS RESURFACING P218E EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REMAIN, PAINT P49E EQ EQ P49E P218E EQ EQ 37'-4" FV P49E 2' - 0 " 2'-0" 13 ' - 0 " EQ P49E SHUTTER, TYP EQ EQCL CL TYP P218E P49E SHUTTER, TYP P49E TYP EQEQ NEW ADDRESS SIGN IN ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION, REF 12 -A2.1 P49E SHUTTER, TYP P49E TYP LKJHGFEDC DOOR HOOD, TYP P49E TYPCAP & CORNICE DO NOT PAINT SMOOTH FACE CONCRETE TYPCAP & CORNICE EXISTING METAL CANOPY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, PAINT TO MATCH CAP & CORNICE P218EP49E P49E P218E CAP & CORNICE P49E 100'-0" FF EL 100'-0" FF EL 134'-0" TOM 134 TOM 131-4" TOM 132'-0" TOM TYP TYP P49E TYP TYP 126'-8" TOM P49E COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYP TYP CAP & CORNICE P49E TYP P49E TYP CAP & CORNICE P49E TYP P49E TYP P49E TYP P49E TYP P49E P49E CAP & CORNICE P49EP49E 126'-8" TOM P49E P49EP49E 126'-8" TOM P49EP49E EXISTING SCREEN WALL SHOWN IN DASHED LINES FOR CLARITYEXISTING QUIK-BRIK TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP EXISTING CONCRETE SILL TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP CAP & CORNICE P49EP49E EXISTING ROOF TILE TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REMAIN, PAINT P49E 8.02 P49E P140E OVERHEAD DOOR, TYP P140E OVERHEAD DOOR, TYP 13121110987654321 EXISTING ORNAMENTAL FENCE TO REMAIN, SHOWN IN DASHED FOR CLARITY, TYP P49E P49E P49E P49E P49EP49EP49E P49EP49E P49E CAP & CORNICE TYP P49E TYP P49E TYP CAP & CORNICE TYP DOOR COMPACTOR DOOR DOOR HOOD DOOR TYP CAP & CORNICE TYPCAP & CORNICE EXISTING METAL CANOPY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, PAINT TO MATCH 100'-0" FF EL 132'-0" TOM 131-4" TOM 131-4" TOM 100'-0" FF EL 131'-4" TOM P49E TYP EXISTING SCREEN WALL SHOWN IN DASHED LINES FOR CLARITY EXISTING METAL CANOPY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, PAINT P49E P49EP49E TYP P49E P49E TYP P49E DOOR P49E TYPEXISTING RAILING SHOWN IN DASHED LINES FOR CLARITY 129'-4" TOM EXISTING RAILING SHOWN IN DASHED LINES FOR CLARITY EXISTING SCREEN WALL SHOWN IN DASHED LINES FOR CLARITY P49E CAP & CORNICE P49E TYP EXISTING JIB CRANE, PAINT P36E P5E P49E CAP & CORNICE P49E TYP P49E CAP & CORNICE P49E TYP EXISTING GAS PIPELINE TO REMAIN PAINT ORNAMENTAL FENCING AT ALL LOCATIONS P36E EXISTING FIRE SPRINKLER VALVE TO REMAIN, REF SHEET NOTE #18 P49E SHUTTER, TYP P49E TRIM, TYP P49E L K J H G F E D C P49E EXISTING ORNAMENTAL FENCE TO REMAIN, SHOWN IN DASHED FOR CLARITY, TYP P49E P49E P49E P49E P49E P49E P49E P49E P49E P49E P49E P49E P218E TYP TYP CAP & CORNICE TYP COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYP CAPCAP & CORNICE TYP CAP & CORNICE TYPTYPCAP & CORNICE TYPCAP & CORNICE CAP & CORNICE TYPTYP TYP 128-8" TOM 100'-0" FF EL 100'-0" FF EL 131'-4" TOM PAINT ORNAMENTAL FENCING AT ALL LOCATIONS P36E EXISTING METAL CANOPY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, PAINT P49E TYP 126-8" TOM P49E P49E P49E CAP & CORNICE P49E P49E P49E TYP EXISTING CONCRETE SILL TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP EXISTING GARDEN CENTER ORNAMENTAL FENCE AND MODULAR RACK SYSTEM SHOWN IN DASHED LINES FOR CLARITY PAINT ORNAMENTAL FENCING AT ALL LOCATIONS P36E P49E COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYP EXISTING QUIK-BRIK TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP P49E TYP P49EP49EP49E TYP CAP & CORNICE DOOR HOOD, TYP DO NOT PAINT SMOOTH FACE CONCRETE NEW FENCE NEW ORNAMENTAL FENCE WITH GRAY SLATS, MATCH ADJACENT TYPE, LEVEL AND FINISH NEW MODULAR RACK SYSTEM FURNISHED BY OWNER AND INSTALLED BY GC IS SHOWN IN DASHED LINES FOR CLARITY CAP P49E CANOPY COLUMN , TYP PRE FINISHED CANOPY METAL FASCIA BY VENDOR TO MATCH NEW AUTOMATIC PICKUP BI-PARTING JAMB MOUNTED SLIDING DOOR DO NOT PAINT ALUMINIUM DOORS/ FRAME 118-0" TOM INFILL DOOR OPENING INFILL WINDOW OPENING, MATCH ADJACENT TYPE, LEVEL AND FINISH INFILL WINDOW OPENING, MATCH ADJACENT TYPE, LEVEL AND FINISH, (TYP OF 2) 4.25P49E P49E P49E B TYP CAP & CORNICE P218E P49E P49E DOORS THAT ARE WHITE ARE ETR. TOUCH UP WHITE DOORS VISIBLE TO CUSTOMERS IF REQUIRED, PAINT TYP. P49E TYP CAP & CORNICE COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYPP49E TYP DOOR P140E EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REMAIN, PAINT P49E P49E EXISTING ROOF TILE TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP 100'-0" FF EL 134'-0 1/2" TOM 116'-9" TOS 147'-3" TOM P49E A CAP & CORNICE TYP P218E P49E TYP 100'-0" FF EL P49E TYP P49E CAP & CORNICE EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REMAIN, PAINT P49E P49E 143'-3" TOM 132'-0" TOM A P218E P49E P49E TYP CAP & CORNICE TYP TYP EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REMAIN, PAINT P49E P49E 100'-0" FF EL 132'-0" TOM 147'-3" TOSOUTDOOR WALMART LINEAR SIGNAGE SITE PLAN DISCLOSURES • PAINT RESTRICTIONS: • ALLOWED SIGNAGE SF: • EXISTING SIGNAGE SF: • PROPOSED SIGNAGE SF: • VARIANCE / PROCESS: BUILDING WAS LAST PAINTED IN AN UNKNOWN YEAR IN EARTH TONE COLOR SCHEME. WE RECOMMEND FULL PAINT IN BLUE GRAY SCHEME 1 SF PER 1FT OF LINEAL LOT FRONTAGE, WALL SIGNAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE FACADE OF THAT WALL 635.46 SQFT 419.16 SQFT YES PICKUP DIRECTIONAL 14 CAP & CORNICE EXISTING ORNAMENTAL FENCE TO REMAIN, SHOWN IN DASHED FOR CLARITY, TYP 100'-0" FF EL 100'-0" FF EL 130'-0" TOM 131'-0" FF EL CAP & CORNICE P49E CAP EXISTING CONCRETE SILL TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYP PAINT ORNAMENTAL FENCING AT ALL LOCATIONSP36EEXISTING QUIK-BRIK TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP P49E P49E P49E CAP TYP 118'-0" TOM CANOPY COLUMN , TYP PRE FINISHED CANOPY METAL FASCIA BY VENDOR TO MATCH P49E P49E 109'-0" BOC P49E P49E DEMOLITION NOTES 1. REMOVAL OF BUILDING MOUNTED ITEMS, SHOWN OR NOTED TO BE DEMOLISHED OR AS REQUIRED BY SCOPE OF WORK, SHALL OCCUR PRIOR TO PAINTING BUILDING a. COORDINATE DEMOLITION WORK SO EXTERIOR PAINTING WILL OCCUR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF BUILDING MOUNTED ITEMS SHEET NOTES 1. PATCH AND REPAIR EXTERIOR WALL SURFACES, DAMAGED OR EXPOSED DUE TO REMOVAL OF BUILDING MOUNTED ITEMS, TO MATCH ADJACENT AS REQUIRED 2. REFER TO DETAILS ON SHEET A2.1 FOR SUBSTRATE AND FINISH REQUIREMENTS AT LOCATIONS OF BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNS 3. RESURFACE EXISTING EIFS WHERE SHOWN (HATCHED AREA) 4. NOT USED 5. PRIOR TO PAINTING WALL AT LOCATION(S) OF LIT ID/LOGO SIGN(S), COORDINATE SCOPE OF WORK WITH WALMART CM 6. IF PAINTING ADJACENT WALLS PAINT HOLLOW METAL STEEL DOORS, DOOR FRAMES, DOOR HOODS, DOWNSPOUTS, EXPOSED METAL FLASHING, HANDRAILS, AND EXPOSED MISCELLANEOUS STEEL TO MATCH PRIMARY ADJACENT BUILDING COLOR UNO 7. PAINT ANY ROOFTOP GAS PIPING • WHERE EXTERIOR WALL IS BEING PAINTED, GAS PIPE ALONG SIDE WALL TO GRADE SHALL MATCH ADJACENT BUILDING • DO NOT PAINT METER OR VALVES 8. IF PAINTING ADJACENT WALLS PAINT CANOPY STRUCTURAL STEEL AND FLASHING TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL 9. WHERE CANOPIES ARE VISIBLE TO AND ACCESSED BY CUSTOMERS, PAINT UNDERSIDE OF CANOPY DECK P33E DO NOT PAINT CANOPY DECK IF NOT PREVIOUSLY PAINTED 10. PAINT ALL EXTERIOR ENTRY BOLLARDS TO MATCH EXISTING COLOR UNLESS NOTED TO RECEIVE PLASTIC BOLLARD SLEEVE, REF SP SHEETS 11. NOT USED 12. DO NOT PAINT LED WALL PACK HOUSINGS 13. PAINT GARDEN CENTER FENCE STEEL DOORS AND FRAMES 14. NOT USED 15. DO NOT PAINT QUIK-BRIK, STONE VENEER, FACE BRICK, UNPAINTED TILT-WALL OR PRECAST PANELS 16. NOT USED 17. PAINT JIB CRANE P36E ON JIB BOOM, P5E ON HANDRAILS 18. PAINT SPRINKLER VALVES • DO NOT PAINT OVER SIGHT GLASS OR FIRE ALARM BELL 19. REPLACE EXISTING NON-GRAY SLATS WITH GRAY SLATS P5E P5EP36E P21E P33E P36E COLOR LEGEND P5E P21E P36E P49E P140E P200E P218E SAFETY YELLOW SAFETY RED BLACK DARK GRAY WHITE DURANODIC BRONZE TRUE BLUE P33E CREAM EQ EQ EQ EQ CL CL P49E P218E NEW SIGN, , TYP NEW SIGN, REF 9 -A2.1REF 11 -A2.1 COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYP EQ CL P49E CAP & CORNICE EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REMAIN, PAINT P49E BA P49EP49E P49E P49E P218E EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REMAIN, PAINT P49E CAP & CORNICE TYP TYP TYP CAP & CORNICE COLUMN ALL SIDES, TYP DOORS THAT ARE WHITE ARE ETR. TOUCH UP WHITE DOORS VISIBLE TO CUSTOMERS IF REQUIRED, PAINT TYP.P140E P49E EXISTING ROOF TILE TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP 100'-0" FF EL 134'-0 1/2" TOM 116'-9" TOS 147'-3" TOM HATCH LEGEND EIFS AREA TO BE RESURFACED (REF SPECS) EIFS AREA EXISTING TO REMAIN A CAP & CORNICE EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REMAIN, PAINT P49E P49E CAP & CORNICEP49E TYP P218E TYP P218E TYP P49E TYP EXISTING ROOF TILE TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP EXISTING CONCRETE SILL TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP P49E 100'-0" FF EL 132'-0" TOM B EXISTING CONCRETE SILL TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP PAINT ORNAMENTAL FENCING AT ALL LOCATIONS EXISTING QUIK-BRIK TO REMAIN, DO NOT PAINT, TYP 100'-0" FF EL 130'-0" TOM P49E CAP & CORNICE TYP P49E P49E CAP & CORNICE P36E P218E P49E TYP EXISTING ORNAMENTAL FENCE TO REMAIN, SHOWN IN DASHED FOR CLARITY, TYP DOCUMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OF RECORD SEAL AND SIGNATURE SHALL BE CONSIDERED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 7007 DISCOVERY BLVD DUBLIN, OH 43017 614.634.7000 T WDPARTNERS.COM SHEET: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROTO CYCLE: DOCUMENT DATE: CO N S U L T A N T S ST I P U L A T I O N F O R R E U S E PR O T O : JO B N U M B E R : TH I S D R A W I N G W A S P R E P A R E D F O R US E O N A S P E C I F I C S I T E A T : CO N T E M P O R A N E O U S L Y W I T H I T S I S S U E DA T E O N A N D I T I S N O T SU I T A B L E F O R U S E O N A D I F F E R E N T PR O J E C T S I T E O R A T A L A T E R T I M E . U S E OF T H I S D R A W I N G F O R R E F E R E N C E O R EX A M P L E O N A N O T H E R P R O J E C T RE Q U I R E S T H E S E R V I C E S O F P R O P E R L Y LI C E N S E D A R C H I T E C T S A N D E N G I N E E R S . RE P R O D U C T I O N O F T H I S D R A W I N G F O R RE U S E O N A N O T H E R P R O J E C T I S N O T AU T H O R I Z E D A N D M A Y B E C O N T R A R Y T O TH E L A W . 10 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 3 9 : 0 2 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / W A L S O 0 0 8 0 - 1 3 0 1 - R o a n o k e - V A / 1 3 0 1_ R o a n o k e _ V A _ 1 8 0 _ L _ A r c h D o c s _ A 2 _ V 2 4 . r v t A2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DF/DP/AV/RS WA L S O 0 0 8 0 RO A N O K E , V A 06 / 2 3 / 2 5 06/23/25 ST O R E N O : 0 1 3 0 1 - 2 7 8 18 0 05/30/25 RO A N O K E , V A SME 53 5 0 C L E A R B R O O K V I L L A G E L N , R O A N O K E , V A 2 4 0 1 4 1" = 20'-0"1 FRONT ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"2 RIGHT ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"4 REAR ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"5 LEFT ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"9 GM-VESTIBULE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"7 GM-VESTIBULE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"8 GR-VESTIBULE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"6 SEASONAL SHOP REAR ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"3 PHARMACY DRIVE-THRU REAR ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"10 GR-VESTIBULE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ALL SIGNAGES SHOWN IN THESE PLANS ARE FOR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND VENDOR/ INSTALLER. ALL SIGNAGE IS UNDER A DEFERRED SEPARATE SUBMITTAL KEYNOTES 4.25 12"D X 4"H X 16"W QUIK BRIK COLOR:"HERITAGE" OR CLOSEST MATCH 8.02 HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME REVISION SUMMARY 2025-09-12 • UPDATED ELEVATIONS TO SHOW NEW OGP DOOR AND CANOPY PER THE REVISED ID PLAN DATED 2025-08-28. • RELOCATED PICKUP SIGNAGE AS PER THE REVISED ID PLAN DATED 2025-08-28. • UPDATED '1'-6'' PHARMACY DRIVE-THRU' SIGN TO ' 2'-0'' PHARMACY DRIVE-THRU DIRECTIONAL' PER BIP GUIDELINES • ADDED SIGNAGE DETAIL #17a FOR VISION SIGN ON A2.2 SHEET • UPDATED CORRESPONDING SIGNAGE DETAILS FOR PICKUP, VISION AND PHARMACY DRIVE-THRU SIGN ON SHEET A2.2 2025-09-24 • REPOSITIONED 'PHARMACY', 'ADDRESS' AND 'PHARMACY DRIVE-THRU' SIGNS PER SAAM COMMENTS • REMOVED 'PHARMACY DRIVE-THRU DIRECTIONAL' SIGN ON FRONT ELEVATION PER SAAM COMMENTS • REMOVED 'A2.1SHEET-EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS' AND MOVED VESTIBULE ELEVATIONS ON A2 SHEET PER SAAM COMMENTS • UPDATED CORRESPONDING SIGNAGE DETAILS AND NEW SIGNAGE SCHEDULE ON A2.1 SHEET PER SAAM COMMENTS • REMOVED 'PHARMACY DRIVE-THRU DIRECTIONAL' SIGNAGE DETAIL #7 WITH SCREEN WALL CAP DETAILS #19 & #20 AND REVISED THE SEQUENCE OF DETAILS ON A2.1 SHEET 1" = 20'-0"13 VISION CANOPY SIDE ELEVATION (TYP) 1" = 20'-0"14 GARDEN CENTER RIGHT ELEVATION ISSUE BLOCK 10/09/2025 Page 1 of 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2009 ORDINANCE 121509-10 TO OBTAIN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND CONDTIONS REGARDING EXTERIOR BUILDING COLORS AND SIGN PANEL COLORS, AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF A MONUMENT SIGN IN A C-2/CVODS, GENERAL COMMERCIAL/CLEARBROOK OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON APPROXIMATELY 41 ACRES LOCATED IN THE 5200 BLOCK OF FRANKLIN ROAD, STABLE ROAD, CLEARBROOK LANE, SINGING HILLS ROAD, AND SUNSET DRIVE, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST WHEREAS, Ordinance 102406-7 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 2006 rezoned approximately 4.1 acres from AR, Agricultural Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District, and granted a Special Use Permit with conditions to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to operate a retail sales establishment with a gross floor area greater than 50,000 square feet, garden center, and minor automobile repair facility on approximately 41 acres located in the 5200 block of Franklin Road; and WHEREAS, Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust has petitioned the County for approval of certain amendments to the Special Use Permit conditions imposed by the above ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 2009 and the second reading and public hearing were held December 15, 2009; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 14, 2009; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as Page 2 of 4 follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit with the following amended conditions to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust to operate a retail sales establishment with gross floor area greater than 50,000 square feet, garden center, and minor automobile repair facility on approximately 41 acres as described in Exhibit B attached to ordinance 102406-7 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 2006, and located in the 5200 block of Franklin Road, Stable Road, Clearbrook Lane, Singing Hills Road and Sunset Drive (Tax Map Numbers 88.04-1-35, 88.03-1-9, 88.03-1-4.1, 88.03- 1-2, 88.04-1-38, 88.04-1-41, 88.04-1-36, 88.04-1-34, 88.03-1-1.3, 88.04-1-26, 88.03-1-6, 88.03-1-3, 88.03-1-1.1, 88.04-1-39, 88.04-1-40, 88.04-1-39.1, and 88.03-1-1.2) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2 -2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The Board also finds that this proposal as modified by the following conditions conforms to the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Vill age Commercial Overlay District, and that any adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood or community shall be minimized by the following conditions. The special use permit is hereby approved with the following AMENDED conditions: 1) The 41 +/- acre site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan prepared by Wolverton & Associates, dated October 13, 2006. 2) All buildings on the 41 +/- acre site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural plans, including exterior materials and colors, prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated September 30, 2009, entitled “#1301-02 Roanoke, VA Exterior Elevations – Proposed Color Scheme”. 3) All roof top mechanical and other equipment shall be screened from view from the Blue Ridge Parkway and U.S. Rt. 220. 4) All retaining walls shall have a maximum height of 12 feet and shall match the Page 3 of 4 exterior material “Quick Brick” and color “Heritage” as shown on the architectural plans prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated October 13, 2006. Retaining walls within any required buffer yard shall not exceed 4 feet. 5) All freestanding signs shall be monument style with a maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum width of 10 feet. The monument sign, exclusive of the sign panels to be installed thereon, shall be constructed with materials and colors that match the buildings, per the architectural plans prepared by Perkowitz & R uth, dated September 30, 2009, entitled “#1301-02 Roanoke, VA Exterior Elevations – Proposed Color Scheme.” The tenant panels shall remain Camel Brown until utilized by a tenant, at which time the background shall be white. 6) The 41 +/- acre site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the landscaping plan prepared by Hill Studio, dated 9/26/06, and including the specific details shown on the “Singing Hills Rd Landscape Buffer” plan prepared by Hill Studio, dated October 13, 2006. 7) Construction entrance shall be located at the Clearbrook Village Lane entrance as shown on the site plan prepared by Wolverton & Associates, dated October 13, 2006. All construction traffic shall use Clearbrook Village Lane. 8) The applicant/developer shall be responsible f or constructing reasonable and necessary off-site improvements to the public road system the need for which is substantially generated and reasonably required by the development. 9) The Route 220/Stable Road intersection and the new Stable Road alignment depicted on the site plan prepared by Wolverton & Associates dated October 13, 2006 will be modified so that: a. The northernmost access to Stable Road located at the rear of the Anchor 1 building will be eliminated. b. Subject to VDOT approval, the Stable Road intersection will be redesigned to safely separate neighborhood and commercial traffic with the traffic engineer for the Singing Hills Road and Stable Road residents having an opportunity for input in the redesign. c. Trucks servicing the development on this 41 +/- acre site shall not use Stable Road for ingress and egress. d. Internal truck circulation on the site shall be addressed and provided. e. Pedestrian conflicts on the site shall be identified and addressed. f. An alternate entrance onto Route 220 Northbound may be evaluated. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust. 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ii-h:W'~Becky R. Me or I Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning John Murphy, Zoning Administrator Susan Carter, Planning Administrator Assistant Page 4 of 4 ~;; ,tlf•OO'IIICaPTI) '"'" ~ I Perkowitz + Ruth I< C" H T E C T S 1.lf=lf'IO ,.,, llP'IPIO ~ '"T,,. ~~~· ~ ~ ·- ~:o.."N rr,:::-: ~ 1 • ·CW1.W:c:N.1tv ,:::;,,tr ....... it :-? ... ...... ....., 1111'1.ltrollCt!CWU IMTGINU.1'00..0lllO ..... ,Ol)tuMr.l,11 COl,.Qill.~IIIIIO'MI tc:•rlfWlll&I.ATCOlilf¥ICl'Ol'I lf'lll'~Q,a,1"'10 --- ~~~-Jf~:Z.,u ,t,PU1',AQ,(MUP10 '°""""-~POWW #1301-02 ROANOKE, VA EXTER IOR ELEVATIONS-PROPOSED COLOR SCHEME (/ 10 ~ ,o ---"' J ·OMO<N tf.KT(lk -·- ,,, :!:!:.".!!.~!!~~o.:_;~~~"!..~ 2009-09-30 _.,. __ . _____ ..,_,.,,.._.,,... Created: 2025-09-15 14:16:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 41) Page 1 of 5 SEC. 30-54. C-2 HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. (Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13) Sec. 30-54-1. Purpose. (A) The purpose of this district is to provide locations for a variety of commercial and service related activities within the urban service area serving a community of several neighborhoods or large areas of the county. This district is intended for general application throughout the county. High intensity commercial districts are most appropriately found along major arterial thoroughfares which serve large segments of the county's population. The C-2 district permits a wide variety of retail and service related uses. Land uses permitted in this district are generally consistent with the recommendations set forth in the transition and core land use categories of the comprehensive plan. Site development regulations are designed to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. (Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08; Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13) Sec. 30-54-2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Uses. Accessory Apartment * Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Home Occupation, Type I * Multi-Family Dwelling * Two-Family Dwelling * 2. Civic Uses. Administrative Services Clubs Cultural Services Day Care Center * Educational Facilities, College/University Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Family Day Care Home * Guidance Services Halfway House * Park and Ride Facility * Post Office Created: 2025-09-15 14:16:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 41) Page 2 of 5 Public Assembly Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Safety Services * Utility Services, Minor 3. Office Uses. Financial Institutions * General Office Medical Office Laboratories 4. Commercial Uses. Agricultural Services * Antique Shops Automobile Dealership * Automobile Repair Services, Minor * Automobile Rental/Leasing Automobile Parts/Supply, Retail * Bed and Breakfast * Boarding House Business Support Services Business or Trade Schools * Commercial Indoor Amusement Commercial Indoor Entertainment Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation Commercial Outdoor Entertainment Commercial Outdoor Sports and Recreation Communications Services Construction Sales and Services * Consumer Repair Services Convenience Store * Fuel Center* Funeral Services Garden Center * Gasoline Station * Hospital Created: 2025-09-15 14:16:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 41) Page 3 of 5 Hotel/Motel/Motor Lodge Kennel, Commercial * Pawn Shop Personal Improvement Services Personal Services Restaurant, Drive-In or Fast Food * Restaurant, General Retail Sales * Short-Term Renal * Studio, Fine Arts Veterinary Hospital/Clinic 5. Industrial Uses. Recycling Centers and Stations * 6. Miscellaneous Uses. Amateur Radio Tower * Parking Facility * Wireless Communication Facility, Class 1* (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Civic Uses. Adult Care Residences Life Care Facility Nursing Home Religious Assembly * Utility Services, Major * 2. Commercial Uses. Adult Business * Automobile Repair Services, Major * Car Wash * Dance Hall Equipment Sales and Rental * Manufactured Home Sales * Mini-Warehouse * Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Center Created: 2025-09-15 14:16:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 41) Page 4 of 5 Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service * Surplus Sales Truck Stop * 3. Industrial Uses. Custom Manufacturing * Industry, Type I Landfill, Rubble * Transportation Terminal 4. Miscellaneous Uses. Broadcasting Tower * Outdoor Gatherings * Wireless Communication Facility, Class 2* Wireless Communication Facility, Class 3* (Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 022796-14, § 1, 2-27-96; 042297-14, § 1, 4-22-97; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 102803-15, § 2, 10-28-03; Ord. No. 102505-7, § 2, 10-25-05; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08; Ord. No. 052411-9, § 1, 5-24-11; Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13; Ord. No. 062816-4, § 1, 6-28-16; Ord. No. 020921-8, § 1, 2-9-21; Ord. No. 011023-4, § 1, 1-10-23; Ord. No. 111924-7,§ 1, 11-19-24; Ord. No. 072225-9, § 1, 7- 22-25) Sec. 30-54-3. Site Development Regulations. General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (A) Minimum lot requirements. 1. Lots served by private well and sewage disposal system; a. Area: 1 acre (43,560 square feet). b. Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 2. Lots served by either public sewer or water, or both: a. Area: 15,000 square feet. b. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. (B) Minimum setback requirements. 1. Front yard: a. Principal structures: 30 feet, or 20 feet when all parking is located behind the front building line. b. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line. 2. Side yard: None. 3. Rear yard: a. Principal structures: 15 feet. Created: 2025-09-15 14:16:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 41) Page 5 of 5 b. Accessory structures: 3 feet. 4. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets. (C) Maximum height of structures. 1. Height limitations: a. Principal structures: When adjoining property zoned R-1 or R-2, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased, provided each required side and rear yard adjoining the R-1 or R-2 district is increased two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. In all locations the height is unlimited unless otherwise restricted by this ordinance. b. Accessory structures: actual height of principal structure. (D) Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 90 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93) Created: 2025-09-15 14:16:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 41) Page 1 of 4 SEC. 30-58. CVOD CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 30-58-1. Purpose. The purpose of the Clearbrook village overlay district is to promote future development that is consistent with the current character of Clearbrook, and with the comprehensive plan future land use map and policies for this area. Future development in this district should respect the character and historical context of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Clearbrook School, and other social and cultural resources in Clearbrook area. The Clearbrook area has adequate public facilities, good road access, suitable topography, and land available for development or redevelopment. Recognizing these factors, the plan, and this district promote the creation of the Village of Clearbrook. Commercial development consistent with these district standards and the community plan design guidelines for the Clearbrook village commercial overlay district is encouraged, but strip commercial patterns of development are discouraged. Thus, the district allows a wide variety of commercial uses, but provides a high degree of emphasis on landscaping, building design, site design, and lighting and signage control. (Ord. No. 121900-11, § 1, 12-19-00; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08) Sec. 30-58-2. Creation of Overlay. (A) The Clearbrook village overlay district is created as an amendment to the official zoning map of the county. All regulations and standards contained herein shall apply to all parcels and land within the designated overlay district. (B) The boundaries of the overlay district as shown on the official zoning map may only be amended by action of the county board of supervisors pursuant to section 30-14 of this ordinance. (Ord. No. 121900-11, § 1, 12-19-00) Sec. 30-58-3. Applicability and Administration. (A) The zoning administrator shall have the responsibility for determining compliance with these standards. In making any such determination, the zoning administrator shall consider the purposes of the Clearbrook village overlay district, and shall consider the extent to which the requested use or development substantially complies with the design guidelines for the Clearbrook village commercial overlay district adopted as part of the county community plan. If in the opinion of the zoning administrator, the use or development does not substantially comply with these design guidelines, the requested use or development shall, by decision of the zoning administrator, be considered a special use and shall require a special use permit pursuant to section 30-19 of this ordinance. (Ord. No. 121900-11, § 1, 12-19-00) Sec. 30-58-4. Permitted Uses and Use Restrictions. The uses permitted in the Clearbrook village overlay district shall be governed by the underlying zoning district in which the property is located as shown on the official zoning maps, except as otherwise modified below: (A) The following uses shall be prohibited within the Clearbrook village overlay district: 1. Civic Uses Park and Ride Facility Created: 2025-09-15 14:16:53 [EST] (Supp. No. 41) Page 2 of 4 Public Assembly 2. Commercial Uses Automobile Rental/Leasing Automobile Repair Services, Major Boarding Houses Commercial Outdoor Entertainment Commercial Outdoor Sports and Recreation Kennel, Commercial Mini-Warehouse Pawn Shop Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service 3. Industrial Uses Recycling Centers and Stations 4. Miscellaneous Uses Parking Facility Broadcasting Towers (B) Unless prohibited in 30-58-4(A) a special use permit shall be required for all uses listed as a special use in the underlying zoning district. In addition, the following uses shall require a special use permit within the Clearbrook village overlay district. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified, or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Uses Multi-Family Dwelling* Two-Family Dwelling* 2. Commercial Uses Agricultural Services* Automobile Repair Services Minor* Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation Communication Services Construction Sales and Services* Convenience Store * Fuel Center* Gasoline Station Garden Center* Restaurant, Drive-In or Fast Food * Retail Sales * Created: 2025-09-15 14:16:53 [EST] (Supp. No. 41) Page 3 of 4 Veterinary Hospital/Clinic (Ord. No. 121900-11, § 1, 12-19-00; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08; Ord. No. 052411-9, § 1, 5-24-11; Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13) Sec. 30-58-5. Site Development Regulations. The site development regulations required in the Clearbrook village overlay district shall be governed by the underlying zoning district in which the property is located as shown on the official zoning maps, except as otherwise modified below: (A) Maximum height of structures. 1. Height limitations: a. Principal structures: 35 feet b. Accessory structures: actual height of principal structure. (B) Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 70 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 121900-11, § 1, 12-19-00) Sec. 30-58-6. Special Regulations in the Clearbrook Village Overlay District. The following special regulations shall apply within the Clearbrook village overlay district: (A) Landscaping. Required landscaping within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with the standards contained in section 30-92-5.1 of this ordinance. (B) Signage. Signage within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with C-1 sign district regulations, except as modified by section 30-93-14(F) of this ordinance. (C) Lighting. Lighting within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with the provisions of section 30-94 of this ordinance. (D) Utilities. All new utility lines and services within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall be located underground. (E) Residential use types. Residential use types within the Clearbrook village overlay district upon the date of the adoption of this ordinance shall not be deemed to be nonconformities, and may be reconstructed, altered and/or enlarged consistent with the requirements contained in section 30-58-5 of this ordinance. In addition, single family detached dwellings may be developed in the district on lots of record in existence on the effective date of this ordinance. Any dwelling constructed shall not be deemed to be a nonconformity. No new subdivisions for residential purposes shall be allowed within the Clearbrook village overlay district, except that family exemption subdivisions shall be permitted pursuant to section 30-100-11 of this ordinance. (F) Parking. All off-street parking, stacking and loading areas within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with the provisions of 30-91 of this ordinance. (Ord. No. 121900-11, § 1, 12-19-00; Ord. No. 052609-22, § 1, 5-26-09; Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13) CLEARBROOK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT Purpose and Intent - Background, Character, and Concept for Future Development - Planning Objectives & Conceptual Graphics Design Guidelines-Specifics Existing Conditions Site Layout Architectural Treatment Landscaping Lighting Sign age Utilities Overall Design Intent Appendix A: Clearbrook Village Overlay District Maps Appendix B: Approval Process - Appendix C: Architectural Examples Appendix D: Native Plants fm· Landscaping 3 3 5 10 16 17 20 21 22 2 Purpose and Intent This document is prepared as an amendment to the 1998 Community Plan and is created in recognition that the area has characteristics that result in growth pressures, such as good road access, public water, public sewer, topography suitable for development, and underdeveloped areas. It is intended for use by property owners in the development and/or redevelopment of their properties within the Clearbrook Village Area. In addition, this document shall be used by the Plaru1111g Commission and Board of Supervisors dming the rev1ew of rezonings or special use requests that lie within the Primary or Secondary Areas of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District. Maps of the entire Clearbrook Village Area and its Primary and Secondary area designations along With fi.trther explanation of these designations can be found m Appendix A. The main goals of this docmnent are listed below. • To protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public, • To enhance the visual appearance of the corridor, • To protect and promote the character, vistas, and economic values along the corridor, and • To prevent unnecessary clutter and congestion associated with unplanned conm1ercial development. Backgwund Background, Chat·acter, and Concept for Future Development Histoncally the Clearbrook area has functioned as a mral residential commmuty w1th some basic retail services. Many of the citizens in tlus area are made up of 4'h and 5'h generations and others who enjoy and take pride in the community's mral atlnosphere and character. The recent extension of public water/sewer to the area combmed with good road access, !ugh traffic volnmes, and relatively undeveloped gentle sloping topography have naturally resulted in growth and development pressures. Recognizing the availability of desirable commercial land in the Clearbrook area, the County designated approximately 80 acres sutTounding Route 220 as Core in the 1998 Commmuty Plan. Core areas are predommately land use areas where ]ugh mtensity urban development is encouraged. However, in conjunction with the areas core designation, the Community Plan also seeks to protect the areas rural character and provides further guidance as to the type and character of development appropriate. 3 Character The Clearbrook area has unique features that distinguish it Ji"om the smTounding area and help to 1dentif'y its individual character. The rural landscape and views of the ridges and valley are important to the residents of the community. In addition, the Blue Ridge Parkway and the views associated with it are irreplaceable resources. The preservatiOn of these commumty resources needs to be maintained into the future. Moun tams surround the area and serve to isolate it from surrounding commercial areas, fonning a relatively small pocket ofland within the Clearbook area suitable for commercial development. In additiOn, the Blue Ridge Parkway spans the north em b01mdary of the Clearbrook area and as it crosses Route 220 creates a barrier to the conm1ercial strip development fonning along Route 220. The area suitable and designated for core commercwl development in the Clearbrook Planning District stretches for approximately 1.5 miles along Route 220 from the boundary of the Blue Ridge Parkway south to Suncrest Drive. Land uses within the Core Clearbrook area are comprised of predominantly vacant and commercial parcels with some single-family residential homes. Commercial uses consist of small, mostly uncoordinated, local-serving retail and otl1er commercial enterpnses. Residences smTotmd the Core area and are comprised of mainly single-family detached homes. The 220 corridor serves a dual purpose as a multi-fimctional, north-soutl1 01iented transportation route. It carries through and commuter traffic between Franklin County and the Roanoke area. It also functions as tl1e main street of the Clearbrook area and serves the commercial and residential uses located on or adjacent to it. Concept for Fntnre Development In the mterest ofmaintaming the rural character of the Clearbrook cotmnunity, all development within its boundaries should seek to reflect the sensitive environmental and natural features of the community. The designated core area is envisioned to serve as a village center for the sunounding communities, as well as serving as a focal point in the Clearbrook area. All development should be centered around the "Village of Clearbrook" area within the community. With in this village area, design guidelines relating to such issues as site plans, architecture, landscaping, signage, and lighting will help to ensure development that is compatible with the mherent rural character of the Clearbook area. Together, the following objectives and gmdelines support the creation of a unifying and consistent identity for the Clearbrook area. 4 Planning Objectives for the Clearbrook Village Area Land Use o Implement the Commumty Plan Future Land Use Map and Policies that advocate creating the "Village of Clearbrook." • Plan for quality development, which may include office, retail, mixed-use and institutional uses. • Encourage aesthetic and design excellence in all public and private unprovements and developments. Detailed guidance regarding aesthetic and design excellence is found in the design guidelines located at the end of this plan. Encourage revitalization and redevelopment of the Clearbrook area to create attractive, commercially viable, and functionally efficient business centers and community focal points. • Encourage designs that produce a desirable relationship between individual sites, the circulation system, and adjacent areas. • Encourage consolidation of contiguous parcels to provide for projects that function in a well-designed, efficient manner while discouraging traditional strip COI1U11ercial/industrial development pattems, which have multiple access pomts, large parking areas, and numerous architecturally unrelated buildings. • Discourage freestanding uses with drive-through facilities and uses that create !ugh traffic volumes to and from and along the corridor and that contribute to the strip-commercial character of the highway. • Mitigate the flooding associated with Narrows Branch & associated tributaries that feed into Back Creek, through the implementation of sub-regional storm water management facilities. • Implement the use of stmm water best management practices (BMP's) and techniques to help preserve or improve the water quality. 5 Transportation • Provide improved traffic control and safety along Route 220 through the use of stoplights, designated crossings, and/or access roads. • Maintain the long-tem1 function of arterial and collector roadways by limiting accesses and promoting vehicular Circulation between parcels. Urban Design " Promote development that respects the rural character/historical context of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Clearbrook School and other social and cultural resources in the Clearbrook area. Avoid the negative impacts of uncontrolled sig~1age, mulhple access pomts, and lack oflandscapmg. • Establish Visual Continuity-Provide a unifom1 right-of-way and a consistent or compatible highway edge treatment to create a unified, attractive visual appearance along the corridor. Place utilities nnderground in conjunction with all public and private development projects. Place emphasis on signage and landscaping standards. • Establish a Clear Corridor Image-Through the use of design gmdelines. ensure quality development compatible with the rural character and establish a strong overall village concept and image for the COlTidor. • Reduce Impact on Adjacent Residential Communities-Mitigate adverse impacts of commercial ac!Jvity such as noise, glare and incompatible building fonns on adjacent residential uses by effective screening, buffering and designmg buildings of appropnate scale and height. Conceptual Graphics The graphics on the following three pages are meant to represent the conceptual ideas and specific standards inherent is this plmming document. They demonstrate the land use, transportation, and urban design plaiming objectives in this section and the specific guidelines located m the subsequent section. 6 The Village Concept Small development nodes separated and defined by features, such as, existing vegetation and naturai stream corridors characterize the Clearbrook Village. Three main signalized intersections along with limited individual accesses along the Rt. 220 corridor ensure the safety and continual functionality of the vehicular corridor. / Conceptual Village Diagram Cc<Ht!!rt~o P«!ootrt.on po<~o ""'~"'*'"'"";ldovo>t.'l'''""'" AnM~Ot""'-""~l'l<mt•'b =••~•p•c~ O"""'opi<'Ot'lyo~!• ooeron 11'1'~~ ·~»<~ Conceptual Village Center Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District No!u -Thono dl'il>'<lng$ 11111 concaplual diii'Jrnm~ of on& pos~lblo wny lhallh~ cr~o•btook VilJago Ale~ oould devn~ Th~y ~m no! rt>IIMI Ia •~rve ao Dcl.r.o! dev~lnpmGnl pDilellUI \><II or~ u•o~ to dumomsll'lllo the tOf\t<Jp!\1~1 kloos lnhernnlllllhn Cl~o•broo1< Vi:lag~ Comm~rdal Ovcrtoy Ois!tlcl Oe~ign Guidon nos No hui!din~ plnn!ing raquirod. lnlerror landscilpmg mqwrod In amount equal to 7% o! tho [olal parking mea. Site Plan Standards for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District Storm water manngemcnl aroa U!ili.zc building mhculnlion to llreak up tong expanses ol buildings. I Access along primary road Plnnt huge docit!uous lrees within tho parkin!J tot n! o rnlion of one troo tor every 1 0· 15 spm:es. lnr.orpnmte nn!urnl slramu corridors ns nssats to daveloprm:mt. B10ak up large parking areas w!!h landscaped pet.lestrlan corridors. Devo!up honl ymds ns open oreon Gpar.os Typical development under current County regulations Development applying proposed recommendations and standards lighting Is out of scale wllh pedestrian. Slgnage overpowers the bu!fding. -= =--=----:::.----= Architectural Standards for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District ( \ l S!gnage area Is In scala wl!h building lagade. Var;.-mg roof shanos and heights adtf interust to largo bul!dings. ----------------==------ Pale signs and overhead utility lines clutier and dominate the landscape. "\ \ Typical development under current County regulations Building Architecture, Lighting, and Parking Lot Landscaping ! \ ( Signage and Adjacent Right-of-Way Plantings Pedestrian seated fighting. Ulili!y lines have been re!oca!od behind buildings or placed underground. Low monumenlol Slf]ns wilh surrounding landscaping create a un!form visual paUern. Development applying proposed recommendations and standards Design Guidelines -Specifics Tlus section provides specific requirements intended to achteve the goals and objectives described in previous sections. L Existing Conditions A. Where significant natural features exist on the site (including creek valleys, steep slopes, and/or significant trees), such natural features shall be reflected in the site layout, to the extent practical. B. In additwn, extsting tree masses that currently act as natural buffers of proposed developments shall be protected and preserved. These tree masses function as natural backdrops to proposed buildings. C. Any large native tree in good condition and over 24" in diameter must be protected, preserved and incorporated in the final site layout, except where such practice severely limits the site's development options. II. Site Layout-The relationslup of the building and other site st11.1ctures to the corridor street and to other development within the corridor shall be as follows: A. An organized pattem of roads, service lanes, and pedestrian walks shall guide the layout of the site. B. Multiple buildings in a single development shall be designed and arranged in order to create and define space. Where more than one building or out parcels are proposed, building placements shall be prean·anged and together fonn a unified theme for the proposed development. Where feasible, orient coirunercial buildings toward the road with parking lots to the side and rear. Site buildings to discourage large expanses of parking adjacent to and VIsible fi:om roadways. Cluster buildings to reinforce a neighborhood style or ambience. In addition, site buildings with respect to natural topography and other environmental/historic features. C. Provisions shall be made for connections to adjacent pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems. Minimize and consolidate access points and provide well-designed and integrated complexes with efficient internal circulation patterns. D. Pedestrian circulation shall be provided for and coordinated with that generated from adjacent properties. 10 E. Parking 1. Design parking areas to allow for futnre interconnections with adjacent parcels. 2. Where more than forty ( 40) parking spaces are required, break up required parking into smaller areas spaced throughout the s1te, lessening their visual and environmental impacts. If more than 150 spaces are required, parking can be broken up by the use of raised landscaped strips with a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet. 3. Any parking in excess of County Requirements shall be constmcted w1th the use of pervious pavements. However, gravel shall not be allowed. 4. Site buildings to take advantage of any shared parldng opportunities that exist. F. Site Access 1. All uses shall have access designed so as not to impede traffic on a public street intended to carry through traffic. To such end, access via the following means will be given favorable consideration: a. By the provision of shared entrances, interparcel travel ways, or on-site service drives connectmg adjacent properties. b. By access from a public highway other than along Route 220. c. By the internal streets of a conunercial, or office complex. 2. Parcels ofland existing at the time the Clearbrook overlay district is created shall not be denied access to a public highway if no reasonable joint or cooperative access is possible, at the time of development. HI. Architectural Treatment A. Architectural treatment of buildings, including materials, color and style, shall be compatible with the selected buildings located within the project area. See Appendix C. Compatibility shall be achieved through the use of similar building massing, materials, scale, colors and/or other architectural featnres. B. There shall be no visible flat or shed roofs permitted. Utilize d01mers, gables and other variations in roof shapes and/or heights that are compatible with the basic facade elements and add interest and scale to the building. Gable roofs, hip roofs and multiple plain roofs are encouraged. II C. The maximum height of sttuctures shall not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet or three stories, whichever is less. D. Where large buildings are proposed, landscaping and architectural facades shall be used to lessen their impact. 1. Avoid vast blank building walls in areas v1sible fi·om the street or adjacent properties by using fenestration, building articulation, detailing or landscape plantings. 2. Building frontages shall have offsets, projections, or other distmctive changes in the building fas:ade. E. Select matenals for harmony with the chosen buildings located within the project area. Exterior materials such as exposed standard concrete block, metal, or brightly colored siding will not be allowed. Materials shall be in the range of earth tones. IV Landscaping A. Landscape standards and specifications 1. Trees required by the preceding paragraphs shall measure a mmimum of2 Y2 inches in caliper at planting tin1e. 2. Shrubs reqmred by the preceding paragraphs shall measure a minimum of 24 inches in height at tune of planlmg. 3. The use of native species shall make up a minimum of 50% of the planting materials. See ScheduleD for a listing of recollll11ended native species. B. Street frontages shall be devoted to building architecture, landscaping, or public green spaces. Landscaping along the frontage of properties adjoining any road right-of-way shall include ilie following: l. A planting area w1th a minimum width of 15 feet shall be established outside of any road right-of-way and utility easements. This area shall be developed as an open green space. 2. Within this strip, one large shade tree and seven shrubs shall be planted for every 30 feet of frontage. One third of all planting shall be made up of evergreen materials. Small trees shall be used where overhead utility lines prohibit the planting oflarge trees. 12 3. In addition, flowering omamental trees, earth berms and/or ground covers shall be interspersed among the large shade trees. 4. Where parkmg is located in front of the building, a berm of varying height with an average height of 2 feet shall be located between the parking area and the adjacent r-o-w. In addition to any other requirements, the berm shall be planted with a minimum of two shrubs for every 5 feet. 5. No uses shall be pennitted within the planting strip except: permitted entrances, minimal utility crossings and easements, pedestrian/bike trails, stom1 water management facilities (which are an integral part of a landscape plan), and Signs as allowed in this dist1ict. C. Parking Areas I. Parking areas shall incorporate raised landscaped islands in order to break up large expanses of pavement. Rmsed landscaped island can be in the fonn of continuous landscaped stnps between every four rows of parking, large plantmg islands located throughout the lot, and/or planting islm1ds between every 10 to 15 spaces. Any rmsed landscaped area shall be a minimum of ten feet in width. Islands shall be planted with large shade trees and evergreen/deciduous shrubs or groundcovers other than grass. 2. Large shade trees shall be p !anted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of one ( 1) tree for every ten (I 0) parkmg spaces and shall be evenly distributed throughout the interior of the parking area. D. Building Plantings I. Trees shall be planted along the side and rear exterior walls of buildings to soften their appearance. One tree shall be planted for every 30 feet of building wall. Flexibility in placement shall be grm1ted where service areas or other utilities are necessary adjacent to the building. 2. Buildings shall incorporate foundation plantings and/or landscaped plazas Ill an area equal to 20% of the total front fa<;:ade area, along main entrance facades, creating a vegetative buffer between the parking area and the building front. 13 E. Stormwater Management 1. Above ground storm water management areas and facilities shall be landscaped with plants adaptable to being temporarily inundated with water. The facility shall be landscaped in order to create a 75% screening of the facility. One-tlmd of all plantings shall be evergreen. V, Ltghtmg A. No freestanding light pole, including fixture, shall be more than 18 feet above grade. All exterior lights, mcluding security lighting, shall be down-lit or shielded so as not to direct glare onto adjoining streets or residential properties. The mtensity at adjoining streets or residential properties shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles. B. In addition, the light source from any security lighting shall not be visible from adjoimng residenttal properties. VI. Signage A The shared use of signs is encouraged for adjacent busmesses. B. Signage shall complement the buildings' architectural style. Materials such as exposed standard concrete block, metal, or brightly colored siding will no be allowed. Colors shall be in the range of earth tones. C. Lots shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one (1) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot fi·ontage. D. Signage placed on buildings shal! occupy less than 5% of the fa<;ade area. E. All freestanding signs shall be monument type (no pole signs) and meet the following cnteria: 1. Monument signs shall not exceed 7 feet in height or 10 feet in wrdth; 2. Signs shall be channel lit, ground lit or top lit with shielded lamps placed so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or on any adjacent road or property. F. Signs shall be complemented, accented and enhanced by landscaping. The size of the landscaping plot shall be one and one half times the square footage of the sign. i4 G. No more than three (3) business signs are pennitted for each business. H. Entrance and exit s1gns are limited to two (2) square feet each. No advertising allowed. I. Restricted signs. The following types of signs shall be prohibited within the district: 1. Off premises signs 2. Portable signs 3. Temporary signs 4. Changeable copy signs 5. Roofsigns 6. Pole signs VII. Utilities F All new site utilities shall be located underground. G. Where feasible, relocate existing overhead utility lines along Rt. 220 underground or to rear yards of buildings along the comdor. 15 Overall Design Intent The previous specific design guidelines were developed to aclneve the followmg overall design intentions. Existing conditions, site layout and site access Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute to the creation of an orgamzed development pattern for the Clearbrook Village area. Tlus may be accomplished, to the extent practical, by preserving the trees and rolling tenain typical of the area; planting species of trees along streets and pedestrian ways that reflect the native vegetation of the area; insuring that any grading will blend into the sunounding topography thereby creating a continuous landscape; preserving to the extent practical, existing significant stream comdors which may be located on the site and integrating these features into the design of the surrounding development; and limiting the building mass/height and reqmred parking to a scale that does not overpower the natural setiing of the site, or the sunounding area. A•·cbitectural Treatment New stmctures and substantial additions to existing stmctures should respect the traditions of historically significant architectural examples in the Clearbrook area. Photographs of historic buildings in the area, which provide Impmtant examples of the tradition, along with other existing suitable examples are contained in Appendix C. The examples contained in Appendix C should be used as a guide of building design: the standard of compatibility with the area's historic and existing structures is not intended to impose a rigid design solution for new developments. Replication of the design of the important historic sites in the area is neither intended nor desired. The Guideline's standard of compatibility can be met through building scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied in architecture which is contemporary as well as traditional. The Guidelines allow individuality in design to accommodate varying tastes as well as special functional requirements. 16 Landscaping Landscaping should promote visual order within the conidor and help to integrate buildings into the existing environment of the corridor. Such connnon elements allow for more flexibility in the design of structures because connuonlandscape features will help to hannomze the appearance of development as seen from the street. The landscaping of parking areas and entrance facades promotes a pedestrian oriented village concept and feel. Sign age, Lighting and Utilities Low signage and lighting fixtures will provide for a uniform and attractive conidor where the rural views and VIstas are not dommaled by pole signs and light poles. Placing all new and relocated utility lines undergro1md will help reduce the potential VJsual clutter along the road corridors and within the village area. Landscaping, building architecture, attractive signage and distant mountam VIews should characterize the Clearbroolc Village area. Appendix A: Clearbrook Village Overlay District Maps The Clearbroolc Village Area is divided into two main area designations. The firs! is the Primary Area. It is depicted by the gray area on the following maps and represents the area that has been rezoned to C-2 General Commercial District. In addition, the Clearbrook Village Overlay District (CVOD), adopted as part of the County Zoning Ordinance, has been applied to this area. The CVOD lays out additional standards and regulations over and above the C-2 General Conm1ercial District regulations. The Secondary Areas are depicted by !he salmon color on the following maps. These areas may or may not be suited for commercial development and no rezoning IS proposed at this time. However, if rezonings are proposed m the future on properties located within this area they should be evaluated based upon their Community Plan designation and their conformance with the policies and gmdelines contained within this docmnent. The Secondary Area designation is used primarily as a safety valve to ensure that if and when those properties are rezoned they are evaluated under the same guidelines as the adjommg properties within the Pnmary Areas. 17 LEGEND PRIMARY AREA SECONDARY AREA PERPARED BY THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY D..LSTRICT {~ORTHERN SECTION) SCALE: 1 INCH = 1 000 FEET DECEMBER 5, 2000 I ; ~ PERPARED BY THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE ·~-D .. E.PA·R·T·M·E·N·T .. O·F·C·O--M•M•U•N•ITY---0-E_V_E-LO_P_M--EN-T------------------ CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY D..LSTRICT (SOUTHERN SECTION) ~ PRIMARY AREA SECONDARY AREA SCALE: 1 INCH = 1 000 FEET DECEMBER 5_ 2nnn Appendix B: Approval Process During the review or proposed projects for either rezonings or special use pe1mits a variety of submissions are recommended for finai approval. Preliminary Conference The Preliminary Conference should be the first step in the rezoning or Site plan approval process. This review IS encouraged prior to any rezonmg or site plan submittal. The planning staff requests a minimum of information and investment for this initial review. Submzttal recommendations for the preliminmy conference: a) Sketch or photograph of proposed building, b) Roanoke County Tax Map Number, and c) Any other material, which the applicant believes, will make the preliminary conference more productive. Development P•·oposal Review During the staff, Planning Commission, and/or Board of Supervisors review, a variety of submittals are recommended to ensure generai conformm1ce With the Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District. Submittal recommendatiOns for pro;ect review: a) Preiimmary site plan showmg proposed building and pm·king lot layouts. Also include any existing natural features that are to be incmvorated into the site plan, such as existing vegetation, stream corridors, etc ... ; b) Elevations of all facades visible from the adjoining road light-of-ways; c) Description of how the proposal complies with the Design Guidelines; d) Justification for any requested deviation from the Design Guidelines. 20 Appendix D: Native Plants for Landscaping Shrubs Alnus ser111lata Aroma melanocmpa Castanea pumila Ceanothus americanus Ceplzalanthus occidentalis Comus amomum Gaultherza procumbens Gaylussacia baccata Hamamelis virginiana J/e;r vez1ici/lata Kalmia latiflia Pieris jloribzmda Rhododendron caiendulaceum Rhododendron maximum Rhododendron prinophyllum Rosa carolina Rubus alleghemensts Vaccmzum angustifo/ium Vaccinizmz c01ymbosum Viburnum prwzifolium Small Trees Amelanclzier arborea Amelanc/zier canadensis Amelmzchier laevzs Asimina triloba Cercis canadensis Chionanthus virgintcus Comus altemifolia Comus jlorzda Crataegus cms-galli Euonymous atropurpureus Halesia tetraptera Monts rubra Common Alder Black Chokeberry Allegheny Chmkapm New Jersey Tea Button bush Silky Dogwood Wintergreen Black Huckleberry Witch Hazel Winterberry Mountam Laurel Mountain Piens Flame Azalea Great Rhododendron Rose Azalea Pasture Rose Alleghany Blackberry Lowbush Blueberry Highbush Blueberry Black-Haw Viburnum Downy Semceberry Canada Semceberry Smooth Serviceberry PawPaw Redbud Fnngetree Alternate-leaf Dogwood Flowering Dogwood Cockspur Hawthorn Wahoo Common Silverbell Red Mulberry Ostrya virginiana Pnmus virginiana Rhus glabra Rims hirta Medium to Large Trees Acer rubrum Acer saccha111m Aesculus jlava Betula alleglzaneinsis Betula Ieiiia Cmya alba Cmys ovata Diospyros vtrgtniana Fagus grandifolia Fraxinus americana Fraxinus pensylvanica Juglans nigra Juniperus virginiana Luqutdambar styraciflua Liriodendron tulipifera Nyssa sylvalica Oxydendrum arboreum Pinus strobes Prwws serotina Quercus alba Quercus coccinea Quercus falcata Quercus ilicifo/ia Quercus montana Quercus ntbra Quercus velutina Tlzuja occidentalis Tilia americana Eastern Hop-hornbeam Choke Cherry Smooth Sumac Staghorn Sumac Red Maple Sugar Maple Yell ow Buckeye Yell ow Birch Sweet Birch Pignut Hickory Shagbark Hickory Persimmon Amencan Beech Wbzte Ash Green Ash Black Walnut Red Cedar Sweetgum Tulip Poplar Black Gum Sourwood Wbite Pine Wild Black Cherry WluteOak Scarlet Oak Southern Red Oak Bear Oak Chestnut Oak Northern Red Oak Black Oak Wlute Cedar American Basswood 22 Appendices A future land use area where high intensity urban commercial and high-density residential developments are encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally based shopping facilities. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Core are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. Land Use Types General Retail Shops, Restaurants and Personal Services - Planned shopping centers and clustered retail uses are encouraged. These centers should incorporate greenways, bike and pedestrian trails into their designs and link them to surrounding neighborhoods. 2IÀFHDQG,QVWLWXWLRQDO3ODQQHGRIÀFHSDUNVDQGLQGHSHQGHQWIDFLOLWLHVLQSDUNOLNHVHWWLQJVDUHHQFRXUDJHG Limited Industrial – Low intensity industrial uses that should not have an adverse impact on air or water quality. Multi-Family Residential – Multi-family residential developments up to 24 units per acre. Mixed-Use²'HYHORSPHQWVWKDWFRPELQHUHWDLOVHUYLFHDQGRWKHUFRPPHUFLDOXVHV ZLWKRIÀFHDQGRU residential uses in the same building or on the same site. Land Use Determinants Existing Land Use Pattern - Locations where commercial uses have been developed or will likely be developed. Existing Zoning - Locations where commercial zoning exists. Access - Locations served by an arterial street system. Population Center - Locations within close proximity to the projected population concentrations. Urban Sector - Locations served by urban services. CORE Katie Gray (on behalf of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust) Request to amend a special use permit condition regarding the architectural plans including exterior materials and colors on 29.97acres of land zoned C-2S, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District Board of Supervisors Public Hearing January 27, 2026 Location Map2 Project Site Property Address 5350 Clearbrook Village Lane Site Size 29.97acres Current Use Retail Proposed Project (SUP) Amend SUP condition to change the proposed color scheme to the building facades of the existing Clearbrook Walmart Proposed Project (not part of SUP) •7000+ sf addition •Sign modifications 3 2000 Residents of the Clearbrook area worked with County staff to develop Design Guidelines for the Clearbrook Village Commercial Overlay District. These Guidelines were adopted as part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and most of the guidelines were incorporated into the Clearbrook Village Overlay District (CVOD). 2006 4.1 acres zoned from AR to C-2 and a special use permit (SUP) approved for 41+ acres for the Clearbrook Walmart. SUP was approved with 9 conditions (Ordinance # 102406-7), which included all buildings being constructed in conformance to the architectural plans, including specific exterior materials and colors. Zoning Background4 2009 Walmart sought amendments to SUP conditions for a new sign and changes to the exterior elevations (Ordinance # 121509-10). A Condition still requires substantial conformance to the revised architectural plans including exterior materials and colors. Revised architectural plans are similar to original approved architectural plans. 2026 Walmart has applied for an amendment to the SUP to change the exterior building color scheme, which is not in substantial conformance to the architectural plans approved in 2009. Zoning Background5 Front Elevation6 2006 Elevation 2009 Elevation Proposed Elevation Front of Building7 8 Left Elevation 2009 Elevation 2006 Elevation Proposed Elevation Left Side of Building 9 10 Right Elevation 2006 Elevation 2009 Elevation Proposed Elevation Right Side of Building11 Rear Elevation12 2006 Elevation 2009 Elevation Proposed Elevation Rear of Building13 Zoning Existing Zoning C-2S High Intensity Commercial District with Special Use 14 Surrounding Zoning North – Agricultural/Residential District (AR) South – High Intensity Commercial District (C-2) East – Agricultural/Residential District (AR), Agricultural/Village Center District(AV), and High Intensity Commercial District (C-2) West –High Intensity Commercial District (C-2 Future Land Use15 Core A future land use designation where high-intensity urban commercial and high-density residential development are encouraged. Land use in core areas may parallel that of central business districts. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally-based shopping facilities. Compatible Land Uses include but are not limited to general retail, restaurants, offices, multi-family residential, and mixed-use. Relevant Guidelines: •New structures and Substantial additions to existing structures should respect the traditions of historically significant architectural examples in the Clearbrook area. •Compatibility shall be achieved using similar building, massing, materials, scale, colors, and/or other architectural features. •Where large buildings are proposed, landscaping and architectural facades shall be used to lessen their impact. •Select materials for harmony with the chosen buildings located within the project area. Exterior materials such as exposed standard concrete block, metal, or brightly colored siding will not be allowed. Materials shall be in the range of earth tones. Clearbrook Design Guidelines 16 Clearbrook Elementary LewisGale Medical Office Planning Commission Public Hearing – January 6, 2026 17 •Four (4) citizens spoke in opposition to the request during the public hearing. •The concerns/issues raised included: •dark and unpleasant color scheme; •lighting; •proposed color scheme would be an eyesore; •proposed color scheme would be another impact to the neighborhood which includes tractor trailer traffic and noisy trash compactors in the morning; •the reason behind the Clearbrook Overlay was to create a community look by keeping the area's color scheme of earth tones and keep it from being an eyesore; and •Clearbrook community came together to ensure it would look a certain way, and if Walmart wants to be part of their community it needs to conform to the standards in place. Planning Commission18 •Planning Commission discussed: •the history of the Walmart project; •architectural renderings and building color schemes from 2006, 2009, and 2026; •Clearbrook Village Overlay district standards; •Clearbrook Village design guidelines; •SUP conditions; •Walmart branding; •lighting; •signage; •significant citizen involvement in creating overlay district and design guidelines on what the community would look like in the future; and •the amount of time and input spent on original Walmart application including architectural renderings and color scheme. Planning Commission Planning Commission recommends denial of the special use permit request to amend a special use permit condition regarding the architectural plans including exterior materials and colors for the Clearbrook Walmart 19 Questions? 20 ROANOKE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 TEL: (540) 772-2071 FAX: (540) 772-2089 Peter S. Lubeck COUNTY ATTORNEY Rachel W. Lower DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY Douglas P. Barber, Jr. Kathryn Thomas SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS SAMPLE MOTIONS The petition of Katie Gray (on behalf of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust) to amend a special use permit condition regarding the architectural plans including exterior materials and colors for the Clearbrook Walmart on approximately 29.97 acres of land zoned C-2S (High Intensity Commercial) District with conditions and CVOD (Clearbrook Village Overlay) District MOTION TO APPROVE I find that the proposed special use permit amendment request: 1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; 2. Does not align specifically to the Clearbrook Village Overlay District’s design guidelines, however it is in conformance with the remaining terms of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. I therefore MOVE THAT WE APPROVE the petition to amend condition number 2 of the existing special use permit as follows: 2. All buildings on the 41 +/- acre site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural plans, including exterior materials and colors, prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated September 30, 2009, entitled #1301 -02 Roanoke, VA Exterior Elevations – Proposed Color Scheme.” WD Partners, dated 06/23/25, entitled “Exterior Elevations—A2.” All other special use permit conditions shall remain in place without amendment. MOTION TO DENY I find that the proposed special use permit amendment request: 1. Is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan, and/or 2. Is inconsistent with the Clearbrook Village Overlay District design guidelines, and/or OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800  Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 3. Is inconsistent with good zoning practice, and/or 4. Will result in substantial detriment to the community. I therefore MOVE THAT WE DENY the request. MOTION TO DELAY ACTION I find that the required information for the submitted proposal is incomplete. I therefore MOVE TO DELAY action until additional necessary materials are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Page 1 of 5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2026 ORDINANCE AMENDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONDITION REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS INCLUDING EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS FOR THE CLEARBROOK WALMART ON APPROXIMATELY 29.97 ACRES OF LAND ZONED C-2S (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS AND CVOD (CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 5350 CLEARBROOK VILLAGE LANE, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Ordinance 121509-10 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 15, 2009 approved amendments to existing special use permit conditions approved by Ordinance 102406-7 pertaining to exterior building colors, sign panel colors, and the maximum size of a monument sign on a retail establishment (“the Clearbrook Walmart”) located at 5350 Clearbrook Village Lane in the Cave Spring Magisterial District (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 088.03-01-09.00-0000); and WHEREAS, Katie Gray (on behalf of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust) has petitioned to amend a special use permit condition imposed by Ordinance 121509 -10 pertaining to exterior materials and colors for the Clearbrook Walmart; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 16, 2025, and the second reading and public hearing were held on January 27, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on January 6, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends denial of the petition as requested; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement ha ve been provided as required by law. Page 2 of 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The Board finds that the special use permit amendment meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; 2. The Board further finds that the special use permit amendment does not align specifically to the Clearbrook Village Overlay District’s design guidelines, however it is in conformance with the remaining terms of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; 3. The Board further finds that the special use permit amendment will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community; 4. The petition of Katie Gray (on behalf of Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust) to amend condition number 2 of the special use permit imposed by Ordinance 121509-10 pertaining to exterior materials and colors for the Clearbrook Walmart, located at 5350 Clearbrook Village Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 088.03 -01-09.00- 0000), is hereby approved, and the conditions, as amended, shall be as follows: 1) The 41 +/- acre site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan prepared by Wolverton & Associates, dated October 13, 2006. 2) All buildings on the 41 +/- acre site shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural plans, including exterior materials Page 3 of 5 and colors, prepared by WD Partners, dated 06/23/25, entitled “Exterior Elevations—A2”. 3) All roof top mechanical and other equipment shall be screened from view from the Blue Ridge Parkway and U.S. Rt. 220. 4) All retaining walls shall have a maximum height of 12 feet and shall match the Page 3 of 4 exterior material “Quick Brick” and color “Heritage” as shown on the architectural plans prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated October 13, 2006. Retaining walls within any required buffer yard shall not exceed 4 feet. 5) All freestanding signs shall be monument style with a maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum width of 10 feet. The monument sign, exclusive of the sign panels to be installed thereon, shall be constructed with materials and colors that match the buildings, per the architectural plans prepared by Perkowitz & Ruth, dated September 30, 2009, entitled “#1301-02 Roanoke, VA Exterior Elevations – Proposed Color Scheme.” The tenant panels shall remain Camel Brown until utilized by a tenant, at which time the background shall be white. 6) The 41 +/- acre site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the landscaping plan prepared by Hill Studio, dated 9/26/06, and including the specific details shown on the “Singing Hills Rd Landscape Buffer” plan prepared by Hill Studio, dated Oct ober 13, 2006. Page 4 of 5 7) Construction entrance shall be located at the Clearbrook Village Lane entrance as shown on the site plan prepared by Wolverton & Associates, dated October 13, 2006. All construction traffic shall use Clearbrook Village Lane. 8) The applicant/developer shall be responsible for constructing reasonable and necessary off-site improvements to the public road system the need for which is substantially generated and reasonably required by the development. 9) The Route 220/Stable Road intersection and the new Stable Road alignment depicted on the site plan prepared by Wolverton & Associates dated October 13, 2006 will be modified so that: a. The northernmost access to Stable Road located at the rear of the Anchor 1 building will be eliminated. b. Subject to VDOT approval, the Stable Road intersection will be redesigned to safely separate neighborhood and commercial traffic with the traffic engineer for the Singing Hills Road and Stable Road residents having an opportunity for input in the redesign. c. Trucks servicing the development on this 41 +/- acre site shall not use Stable Road for ingress and egress. d. Internal truck circulation on the site shall be addressed and provided. e. Pedestrian conflicts on the site shall be identified and addressed. Page 5 of 5 f. An alternate entrance onto Route 220 Northbound may be evaluated. 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance.