With regards to the Framework Principles, we agree on the following: best available data; socioeconomic inequities; natural and nature-based solutions; and community and regional scale planning (strongly.) We take a neutral stance on cost-effective solutions only to express concern that "cost-effective" can sometimes inadvertently result in cheap alternatives, unnecessary shortcuts, and lack of initiative to seek or advocate for increased funding. Secondly, resilience projects should restore land acreage and be economic drivers for the region at risk. If the resilience project can be economically fruitful for the region, to the point of paying for itself - there is less (or no) concern to be "cost-effective."

When considering the Framework Goals, we agree strongly agree with the goal of priority projects, with the contingency that there is a knowledge and understanding that priorities look very different depending on the location that is being assessed. What may be a priority for an urban locality is likely to look very different from what a priority in a rural locality looks like. There needs to be a method for ranking priority projects that takes this into very high consideration. We strongly agree with the goal of coordination in that resilience, sustainability, restoration efforts must align and work in tandem with each other across borders. These are federal-level issues that require looking at the big picture - the Chesapeake Bay & Atlantic Coastline - not just each locality's borders. We strongly agree in the goal of establishing a financing strategy, with the contingency that this goal also address the importance of how resilience efforts can be economically beneficial to the locality and region to the extent that the project may even generate a return on investment, so to speak, through increased transient occupancy tax, housing/full time residents, ability for large vessels to continue navigation through smaller channels when storms are imminent, bringing them into local ports, etc.

We strongly disagree with the established 4 Master Planning Regions. While rural and coastal, the Eastern Shore (Accomack-Northampton PDC) is vastly different from the other rural coastal regions (as identified by the VCRMP); the starkly apparent difference being that the Eastern Shore has an Atlantic Seaboard and the other rural coastal regions do not.

The Framework established 20 year planning horizons are good milestones, but the 20-yr span between horizons leaves a lot to the imagination when it comes to planning and requiring more time-specific data and analyses. This finer-tuned data is needed to identify priority projects (especially with regards to ranking rural vs urban), and determine the best designs to ensure sustainability and transferability.