September 10, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION (Justin.Williams@deq.virginia.gov)
Justin Williams
Director, Office of Watersheds and Local Government Assistance Programs
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1105
Richmond, VA 23218
Re: Public Comments on Proposed GM25-2004 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Resiliency Guidance
Dear Justin Williams,
On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Rappahannock, Potomac Riverkeeper Network, Southern Environmental Law Center, and Wetlands Watch, we are writing to comment on the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) draft guidance documents for administering recent legislative amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) codified at Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:72, and the recently adopted implementing regulations at 9 VAC 25-830-155. The statute and implementing regulations require both an assessment of the impacts of climate change and sea-level rise (Resilience Assessment) on any proposed land development in the CBPA Resource Protection Areas (RPA) and the imposition of conditions and adaptation measures to address these potential impacts. These comments address several aspects of the proposed guidance.
We thank DEQ for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed CBPA Resiliency Guidance. We appreciate DEQ’s thoughtful efforts to review and incorporate feedback from the 2024 informal comment process. We recognize the agency’s significant work in clarifying guidance that is both technically complex and precedent-setting. We are encouraged to see that many of our initial concerns have been addressed in this draft, including clearer examples of appropriate resiliency assessments, the removal of outdated or contradictory scenarios, and refinements that better align with the intent of the CBPA.
In particular, we appreciate the explicit clarification that any proposed land development that will encroach into an RPA falls under the provisions of 9VAC25-830-155 in addition to 9VAC25-830-140 and 9VAC25-830-130. We also thank DEQ for addressing the ambiguity around fill by tying allowable uses back to critical limitations in 9VAC25-830-155(C)(3)(a) and by describing in detail those limitations, including slope, vegetation, stormwater management, impacts to adjacent properties, septic systems, and consistency with the National Flood Insurance Program.
We further commend DEQ for tackling this important initiative to integrate climate change considerations into the CBPA. This effort places Virginia at the forefront of preparing for the unprecedented risks posed by sea level rise, recurrent flooding, and land loss. By requiring new development in RPAs to undergo comprehensive risk analyses, DEQ is advancing proactive planning that is critical for safeguarding property owners, localities, and the ecological health of our shorelines.
At the same time, we recognize that guidance of this nature is both iterative and evolving. While we appreciate the improvements made, outstanding issues remain where the regulatory requirements and the guidance text may diverge, creating the potential for confusion in local implementation. We submit the following comments in the spirit of collaboration to strengthen the clarity and consistency of the guidance and to ensure that its application results in resilient communities and the long-term protection of buffer health and function.
We thank DEQ for clarifying that BMPs should be selected and implemented based on site-specific conditions and designed, installed, and maintained in accordance with the standards provided by their source. This emphasis on local soil, hydrology, and landscape characteristics will help ensure adaptation measures are effective, durable, and beneficial for both resilience and water quality. With this in mind, we would still recommend aids, such as flowcharts, decision trees, or checklists that local staff may use to apply the requirements consistently. We recommend that the site-specific conditions clarification in the Guidance Document be carried through to the related supplemental documents under review.
We appreciate the new framing of project lifespans and the higher standard for applicants who propose short durations. However, we continue to advocate for mandatory language that principal and accessory structures shall be assessed at a 30-year default lifespan. A required standard would promote consistency across localities and ensure projects account for long-term climate impacts.
We recognize the value of adaptation measures for resilience, property protection, and water quality, and we appreciate that DEQ will continue to identify funding available for BMP implementation. However, affordability continues to be a significant obstacle for many property owners. Recent data indicate that the cost of essential adaptation measure materials, like sand, has increased in recent years. Using the “Producer Price Index: Nonmetallic Mineral Products” as a proxy for living shoreline construction sand, we note that the index has climbed 6.8% over the past year alone and 44% in the past 5 years (FRED). With inflation and supply chain disruptions due to tariff uncertainty, costs are likely to continue to rise. Without mechanisms to address affordability, such as cost-share programs, subsidies, or other incentives, there is a real risk that implementation will be inconsistent and inequitable. We encourage DEQ to integrate affordability measures into this guidance or future supplemental materials.
Conclusion
We thank DEQ for its thoughtful work in developing and refining this guidance and for addressing many of the concerns raised during the 2024 comment period. The improvements represent important steps towards ensuring that the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is implemented in a way that strengthens resilience, protects water quality, and provides notice to Tidewater property owners of the real impacts of climate change. We look forward to continuing to work in partnership with DEQ and local governments to ensure the success of this guidance and to advance practical, equitable, and science-based approaches to adaptation across Virginia.
Sincerely,
Mary-Carson Stiff, Executive Director
Wetlands Watch
Patrick Fanning, Virginia Staff Attorney
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Emily Steinhilber, Virginia Director, Climate Resilient Coasts and Watersheds
Environmental Defense Fund
Brent Hunsinger, Advocacy and Coastal Programs Director
Friends of the Rappahannock
David Flores
Potomac Riverkeeper Network
Morgan Butler
Southern Environmental Law Center