1 comments
July 6, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION (lisa.mcgee@dcr.virginia.gov)
Lisa McGee
Policy and Planning Director
600 East Main Street, 24th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Lisa McGee,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft manual for the Southwest Virginia Resilient Recovery and Rebuilding round of the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund (RVRF). On behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Lynnhaven River NOW, and Wetlands Watch, we submit these comments. We commend DCR and VRA for their prompt assistance in helping communities rebuild after Tropical Storm Helene and the February 2025 rainstorms. As we enter the 2025 Hurricane Season, we would be interested in learning if the Commonwealth views the RVRF as part of a comprehensive approach to build back better following a disaster. We support the Fund’s focus on flood-affected localities and appreciate the intent to coordinate efforts with DHCD, VDEM, DEQ, and other agencies.
We offer the following recommendations to strengthen the round, ensure equitable access, and preserve the RVRF’s long-term mission.
Previous RVRF manuals expressly grounded every round in the Coastal Resilience Master Planning Framework principles (science-based decision making, equity, nature-based solutions, fiscal responsibility, and regional planning) as well as the Chief Resilience Officer’s guidance principles, quoted below:
“1) We are committed to addressing challenges relating to flooding and resiliency.
2) We must address these challenges with programs that work for all impacted parts of Virginia.
3) The programs we implement must work together as parts of comprehensive, cohesive Plans.
4) These programs and plans must be developed and implemented with transparency and input from the public.”
Their absence from the 2025 draft raises a question about the extent to which evaluation priorities will continue to reflect statutory intent.
Disaster recovery is not just about rebuilding what was lost; it’s about rebuilding in a way that reduces future vulnerability. By reaffirming these planning principles, the RVRF can ensure that recovery investments don’t inadvertently re-entrench risk (e.g., rebuilding vulnerable structures in flood-prone areas) but instead contribute to adaptation, long-term savings, and sustainability.
Although this round is disaster-specific, these are still public resilience funds. Applicants, especially local governments, need consistent expectations to plan projects, coordinate funding resources, and align with state programs such as the Community Flood Preparedness Fund or Coastal Resilience Master Plan implementation.
Disasters do not impact communities equally. Socially vulnerable and low-income populations often face disproportionate impacts and barriers to recovery. The planning principles direct state agencies to center equity, prioritize cost-effective nature-based options, and use the best available data. These principles are even more important in the wake of destruction, when decisions are made quickly and resources are finite.
The RVRF’s enabling legislation (Va. Code 10.1-603.28 et seq.) emphasizes resilience and adaptation, not just repair. The planning principles give substance to these statutory goals and align state programs with Virginia’s broader climate strategies under the CRMP and VFPMP.
Floods can and do occur all across Virginia. While the communities identified as eligible applicants in this round of RVRF funding have suffered most recently, we know that additional communities will experience significant flooding in the future. It is critical that we do not lose sight of the intent to use the RVRF and the CFPF as statewide resources to build resilience.
Reinsert and reincorporate the Resilience Planning Principles and CRO guidance from previous rounds in the manual’s introduction. Make explicit how they guide project evaluation and funding priorities in this round.
Previous funding manuals contained robust, statute-aligned definitions (e.g., “building,” “hazard mitigation,” “low-income community,” “project”). The current draft offers no definitions. Clarity will be critical for applicants and reviewers, particularly with terms such as “infrastructure,” “accessory structure,” “resilient rebuilding,” and “benefits.”
Reuse definitions from earlier manuals and add any new terms specific to this round’s emphasis on resilient disaster recovery (e.g., “privately-owned hazardous structure,” “location-dependent structure,” “useful life”).
The draft acknowledges that DCR is required by statute to give “additional weight” to projects located in localities with “very low community resilience.” Still, it then limits eligibility for the upcoming round to local governments in localities covered by President Biden’s Major Disaster Declaration issued on October 3, 2024, and the State of Emergency issued by Governor Youngkin on February 10, 2025. It appears that DCR may be using a provision requiring that projects in certain localities receive an added measure of priority to limit eligibility to certain localities altogether. Along these lines, it appears that this round may depart from the prior practice of using Adapt VA’s Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to score all submitted projects without excluding any communities from applying.
Publish the complete list of eligible localities (not only a map) and add a legend explaining the map colors.
Clarify the designation of a “very low community resilience rating” and which standard or criteria will be applied by the Department, and if this definition or rating is subject to change in future rounds of funding.
Explain the precedent for replacing the SVI with a disaster declaration and consider reopening eligibility with priority scoring to adjacent underserved communities
Retain a quantitative equity factor (SVI or similar) in scoring for all categories.
Prior rounds allowed qualifying low-income communities to draw up to 10 percent of grant funds in advance. Please confirm whether this policy will continue in this round.
Previous RVRF manuals clearly outlined loan conditions as maximum maturities based on the expected useful life of the financial asset (e.g., 15-30 years), and even capped individual loan amounts in some categories (e.g. $1 million for hazard mitigation of buildings). These details were important for transparency and financial planning by local governments, especially those with limited debt capacity or staff resources. In addition, it is unclear if there are any caps on applications that have been incorporated into previous rounds.
In contrast, the 2025 draft manual includes no information about:
Maximum loan cap sizes per applicant or project
Required repayment terms or amortization schedules
Whether repayment begins immediately or is deferred
The role of useful life in determining maturity
Acceptable security instruments (e.g., general obligation, lease, or revenue-backed)
Whether loans can or must be subordinate to existing bond issuances
What happens if a locality defaults or federal funding is delayed.
Please clarify:
Privately-owned hazardous structures: Please define or reference criteria (e.g., structures condemned by the locality, repetitive-loss buildings, dams not meeting state safety requirements, etc.).
Location-dependent structures: Please provide examples to help clarify the types of structures considered access/flood-control features that must remain in or near the floodplain due to their function (e.g., private bridges, culverts, retaining walls).
Building benefits: We recommend that replacement and retrofit work be required to both restore function and measurably reduce future flood risk (e.g., elevating HVAC above the BFE + 2 ft, installing flood vents).
Accessory structures: Define size/use limits (e.g., detached garages < 600 sq ft, fuel tanks) and eligible resilience measures (elevating propane tanks, anchoring sheds, etc.).
Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC): Tie eligibility to documented NFIP “substantial damage” or “repetitive loss” determinations to avoid confusion.
If a locality borrows $20 million to replace a public bridge, the loan’s term, rate, and repayment obligations should correspond to the expected useful life of the asset. Without guidance on amortization, localities cannot properly assess debt service risk or evaluate competing funding options.
Define “infrastructure.” Please specify whether the intent is to limit eligible infrastructure assets that serve a direct flood resilience or hazard mitigation function (e.g., bridges or culverts that manage floodwaters), or whether the term also includes infrastructure that was damaged during the event(s) but does not directly support flood mitigation (e.g., roads, water/wastewater systems, utilities). A more precise definition will help determine eligibility and alignment with program goals.
Define “resilient rebuilding” (e.g., meeting ASCE 24 plus 2 ft freeboard or using CRMP sea-level-rise projections).
Encourage nature-based or hybrid solutions (living shorelines in coastal areas, floodplain reconnection) consistent with the Commonwealth’s resilience planning principles.
State how useful life will be determined and how maintenance covenants will be enforced.
We are excited to see a revolving line of credit to mobilize federal funds. While the manual indicates that repayment will occur upon federal reimbursement, delays or reductions in federal disbursements are not uncommon. It is unclear whether:
Interest will accrue during the waiting period
Localities will be liable if the federal agency disallows a cost or cancels a portion of the award
Repayment timelines will be flexible or punitive under such circumstances.
Please clarify:
Approval criteria, credit-rating requirements, and whether small-tax-base localities will have equal access.
Interest rate, accrual schedule, and whether interest is forgiven upon prompt federal reimbursement.
Applicant liability if FEMA or another agency later deems a cost ineligible or if Congressional rescissions reduce funding.
Reinstate detailed loan term guidance from previous RVRF rounds, including loan maturity caps tied to useful life
Specify whether interest-only or deferred payment options are available.
Publish a model amortization schedule or repayment scenarios.
Clarify what constitutes acceptable loan security and whether subordination to existing obligations is permitted.
For bridge loans, provide contingency language regarding federal delays, disallowances, or partial reimbursement scenarios.
Earlier rounds published draft Appendices with point-based rubrics for each category. The current draft commits to releasing criteria “prior to the opening of the funding round” but provides no preview. These documents are critical for transparency and applicant planning.
Release draft scoring sheets (need, impact, cost-effectiveness, equity, nature-based benefits, readiness, maintenance plan) as soon as you can.
Explain how “rolling” submissions will be ranked fairly.
Retain the 36-month completion window and clear extension policy from earlier manuals.
Please publish a template MOA so applicants understand performance and reporting expectations and clarify:
Period of performance and whether it can be negotiated for complex projects.
Grounds and procedure for partial funding or project denial, including the right to receive written justification and an opportunity to revise/resubmit.
Inspection schedule and documentation requirements for project close-out.
Because the current round is disaster-specific, we urge DCR to announce a tentative timeline for the next statewide RVRF round that reopens capacity building and capitalization categories or a clear RVRF strategy that would provide similar rounds following disasters as part of a comprehensive strategy to build back better. Many localities that were spared from recent floods still need support to prepare for the next event. Additionally, it appears that many details previously included in prior grant manuals have been omitted from this round. While we have also heard from communities directly about barriers to utilizing RVRF funds, we believe that working together, we can ensure that RVRF funds are utilized where they are most needed while still maintaining clear guidelines, broad eligibility, and transparency.
We are grateful for DCR’s leadership in helping Southwest Virginia recover and rebuild stronger. Implementing the above recommendations will reinforce statutory objectives, promote equity, and give applicants the clarity needed to develop projects that align with the program’s guiding principles.
Sincerely,
Mary-Carson Stiff
Executive Director, Wetlands Watch
Emily Steinhilber
Director, Climate Resilient Coasts and Watersheds, Environmental Defense Fund
Morgan Butler
Senior Attorney, Southern Environmental Law Center
Jay Ford
Virginia Policy Manager, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Karen Forget,
Executive Director, Lynnhaven River NOW