[brief] Concurrent with [...]’s flood hazard area individual permit application, [...] sought a flood hazard area verification from DEP.  (Aa117).  A flood hazard verification reflects DEP’s determination of, among other things, the location of a riparian zone, flood hazard area, and the inner portion of a flood hazard area, known as the floodway.  N.J.A.C. 7:13-5.2(a).  The verification can be “for either an entire site or [a] portion of a site” as applicable.  Ibid.  Generally, both the flood hazard area and floodway are verified for DEP to issue a flood hazard area individual permit.  N.J.A.C. 7:13-5.5(a).  However, a floodway verification is not required where DEP determines, based on a visual inspection of submitted site plans and without reviewing calculations, that: (1) no fill or aboveground structure is proposed within the floodway; and (2) compliance with flood storage displacement requirements in N.J.A.C. 7:13-11.4 does not require knowledge of the floodway location.  N.J.A.C. 7:13-5.5(c).  Here, DEP issued a verification for the flood hazard area and riparian zone, N.J.A.C. 7:13-5.2(a), but no floodway verification was required under the FHACA rules.  No fill or aboveground structures were proposed in the floodway.  (Aa15; Aa18).  Instead, [...] proposed a stormwater outfall in the flood hazard area and floodway, (Aa19), which is permitted under N.J.A.C. 7:13-11.3(c)(5), and met the requirements in N.J.A.C. 7:13-12.9.  (Aa19).  DEP reviewed the site plans and noted that “by inspection, it is clear that the floodway will not be impacted by the proposed stormwater outfall structure proposed in the flood hazard area. ”  (Aa15).  Further, DEP concurred with [...]’s calculations that the Project’s flood storage displacement requirements in N.J.A.C. 7:13-11.4 were met and thus concluded knowledge of the exact floodway location was not required because “[n]o activities will take place in any floodway. ”  (Aa15).  None of [...]’s arguments that floodway verification was required here is correct.  [...] argues that per N.J.A.C. 7:13-5.5(a), DEP should have verified the floodway in addition to the flood hazard area.  (Ab42).  But floodway verification was not required here as the Project proposed no fill or aboveground structures in the floodway and complied with the flood storage displacement requirements.  N.J.A.C. 7:13-5.5(c); (Aa15; Aa18).  Contrary to [...]’s claim, DEP did address the floodway verification, (Aa15; Aa18), just not to [...]’s preferred level of detail.  [...] also was itself notably silent in its own comments about floodway verification and still has offered no reason why floodways are an issue, other than general flooding concerns.  (Ab32).  [...] also mistakenly suggests that the approved plans were last revised on November 29, 2022.  (Ab44).  Before approving the Permit, DEP noticed that certain riparian zone plans contained floodway lines.  On November 30, 2022, DEP asked [...] to remove the floodway lines because DEP was verifying only the flood hazard area, not the floodway.  (Aa50).  [...] removed the floodway lines that same day, and the riparian zone plans were digitally approved by DEP on December 2, 2022.  (Ra95).  Therefore, DEP’s verification must be upheld.