Dear Ms. Davis,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Notice of Funding Opportunity and Funding Manual for the upcoming round of the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund (RVRF). These comments are being submitted on behalf of American Rivers, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Rappahannock, Lynnhaven River NOW, Potomac Conservancy, Potomac Riverkeeper Network, Southern Environmental Law Center, and Wetlands Watch. We commend the Department of Conservation (DCR) and the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA) for their continued assistance in helping communities rebuild after Tropical Storm Helene and the February 2025 rainstorm.
We support offering this round of RVRF funding as grants rather than loans, and we understand the desire to focus this on specific flood-affected localities. We also acknowledge the value of DCR coordinating its efforts with the Department of Housing & Community Development (DHCD), the Department of Emergency Management (VDEM), the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and other agencies. However, we are concerned that if DCR makes it a regular practice to limit rounds of RVRF funding to specific locations affected by particular storms and events, it could make it more difficult for localities to determine whether the RVRF is a potential resource for either pre- or post-disaster resilience funding for projects and to plan accordingly. We request DCR clarify whether the RVRF will continue to be used solely to respond to disasters or willa gain be open to statewide applications.
We offer the following recommendations to strengthen the draft manual, ensure more equitable access to the funding, and promote the RVRF as a critical funding resource for flood risk reduction in the Commonwealth. We provide these comments to highlight some key questions and concerns, and a subset of representatives from our groups would appreciate an opportunity to meet with you to discuss the manual in more detail.
First and foremost, on July 1st, 2026, recent amendments to the RVRF statute will become effective, and we believe it is important for this RVRF funding round (and the underlying manual) to align with these changes. The amendments require that “additional weight shall be given to those projects that are located in low-income geographic areas, as that term is defined in Section 10.1-603.24 and to projects that incorporate nature-based solutions.” This change brings the RVRF in line with provisions of the CFPF and Virginia’s resilience priorities, and the manual should reflect those changes so that this round of funding can reflect the General Assembly’s desired priorities.
Many of our comments on the draft manual for the previous RVRF funding round that closed in June 2024 apply to this draft manual as well. Those complete comments can be found here. (Previous Letter for Reference ). Among those prior comments that we reiterate here, we continue to recommend that the manual reference the Commonwealth’s resilience planning principles, which have been incorporated into Section 10.1-658(E) of the Virginia Code, as well as the Chief Resilience Officer’s “additional guiding principles” set forth on page 6 of the “Status of Flood Resilience in the Commonwealth” report that the Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources issued in 2023.
We also continue to recommend that definitions included in the manual be consistent with definitions in the RVRF statute, and that any new terms related to resilient disaster recovery that are introduced in the manual be defined therein. Along those lines, we wish to note a concern that the phrase “very low community resilience rating” is interpreted in the current draft manual in a manner that suggests that interpretation may only pertain to this current funding round and the specific disasters for which this round of funding is being made available. We recommend adopting a definition of this term–and a system for identifying such communities–that remains consistent between funding rounds so that communities can determine whether they meet the threshold and know whether they should be focused on the RVRF as a promising funding source for one or more projects well in advance of each Notice of Funding Opportunity being published. We also recommend making sure the language laying out the list of eligible activities on page 1 of the draft manual mirrors the definition of “Project” in the RVRF statute.
We are concerned that the list of eligible applicants appears to be significantly more narrow than allowed by statute w for this round of funding. Specifically, in the draft manual’s definitions section, the term “Eligible Applicants” is limited to Planning District Commissions (PDCs) and Industrial Development Authorities (IDAs). However, other sections could be read to mean that localities may also apply, including the application form included as Appendix A. We recommend clarifying in the final manual what entities are eligible to apply for funding this round. Further, if the intent is to limit eligible applicants to PDCs and IDAs, we urge DCR to provide an explanation for this approach and to indicate whether it intends to maintain this approach in future RVRF rounds.
Additionally, page 3 of the draft manual states that “[f]inal awards are subject to availability of funds, demonstrated demand, and approval by the Department and the Virginia Resources Authority (“VRA”), as applicable.” We urge DCR to clarify in the manual what it means by “demonstrated demand.” More broadly, we recommend that DCR use the time before the next RVRF funding round to develop a consistent system for reviewing applications and determining which applications will be approved and allocated funding. This could be done by developing a scoring matrix, a plan for prioritization, minimum standards, or some other clear indicators that will allow DCR and the Advisory Review Committee to apply a consistent process, make informed decisions, and track project successes.
We support the manual’s inclusion of a general design standard–here, “maintaining structural integrity during a 500-year flood”–that projects must meet. This helps ensure that RVRF funds will be invested in projects that demonstrate resilience over the long term to future flooding and other disaster events. Although we recognize the need for some degree of flexibility in special cases, we have some concerns with the use of “where feasible” at the end of the 500-year flood standard. Feasibility analysis can mean engineering feasibility, cost feasibility, site feasibility, regulatory feasibility, or some combination of these. The manual should offer some specificity about where the line for “feasibility” will be drawn.
Once “feasibility” is more clearly defined, one potential implementation approach is for applicants to offer a non-feasibility attestation signed by a CFM or PE. However, this approach would require guardrails, including DCR review of any such attestations, along with a requirement for the applicant to submit the underlying engineering analysis and allow for an inspection at construction. DCR should also be able to reject any feasibility determinations with which it reasonably disagrees. In previous letters, we have recommended an “inspection schedule and documentation requirements for project close-out,” and we recommend that again here.
Category 1 A Bridges, Culverts, Slope Stabilization
We acknowledge that bridges, culverts, and slope stabilization are key elements to resilient properties, particularly in the rural communities eligible for funding in this round. We recommend referencing the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) technical guidance considerations for climate change and coastal storms. We also recommend including explicit mention and encouragement of nature-based solutions for slope stabilization, particularly given that one of the Commonwealth’s Resilient Planning Principles prioritizes natural solutions, and that the recent amendments to the RVRF statute require that the RVRF prioritize natural solutions. Further, in the process of reviewing and selecting applications for funding, we urge DCR to prioritize nature-based solutions to comply with those amendments.
Category 1 B Private Property
Under category 1 B of the draft manual, the demolition of substantially damaged residential structures is included as an eligible expense. We recommend that DCR use the FEMA definition of “substantial damage” to gauge eligibility for this activity in order to be consistent with references to other federal standards in the manual.
We also recommend clarification that RVRF grant funds are eligible to be used as a match for the private property’s use of increased cost of compliance (ICC) insurance.
In addition, we recommend that legal and financial work necessary to establish a clear title and marketability for the acquisition of properties be considered as eligible project costs.
1 C Targeted Flood Resilience Actions
This section details support for targeted structural and nonstructural mitigation measures that reduce flood risk and are not explicitly outlined in categories 1A and 1B. However, the terms used in the draft are particularly vague. We recommend providing additional resources or using examples to help localities understand which activities could qualify under this section.
Appendix A
The application form included as Appendix A includes a signature block for localities even though it does not appear that localities are eligible applicants for this current round. Given the critical role that localities play in this process, we are fully supportive of a local representative being an additional signatory on the application. Given that role and their status as signatories to the application, we suggest that the final paragraph include the phrase “local floodplain ordinances.” This appendix requires signatures from the local government and PDC; therefore, this should also be mentioned in the manual as well.
We are pleased to see the inclusion of ASCE 24-24 in the Appendix and would recommend introducing it in the body of the manual as well to help highlight its importance in promoting specific resilient building standards.
Additionally, the manual notes that the Department began accepting applications on December 1, 2025. The Department should clarify and specifically note how this new manual will or will not impact previous applicants, if any, and state the reasoning for reissuing a manual mid-round.
We are grateful for DCR’s leadership in helping Southwest Virginia recover and rebuild stronger. We applaud the inclusion of technical assistance funding to help support the implementation of flood resilience projects. We believe implementing the above recommendations will reinforce statutory objectives, promote equity, support natural solutions, and provide applicants with the clarity needed to develop projects aligned with the program’s guiding principles. Again, we would value the opportunity for a subset of representatives of our groups to meet with you to discuss the manual in more detail.
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
Pat Calvert
Virginia Director of Conservation, American Rivers
Ken Wright
Virginia Policy Director, Potomac Conservancy
David Flores
Vice President and General Counsel, Potomac Riverkeeper Network
Brent Hunsinger
Advocacy and Coastal Programs Director, Friends of the Rappahomock
Karen Forget
Executive Director, Lynnhaven River NOW