Director Matthew Wells                                                                                  November 18, 2022

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

600 East Main Street

24th floor

Richmond, VA 23219-2094

RE: Comments to Notice of Public Comment Forum - Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan – Phase 1 and Notice of Public Comment Forum - Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Planning Framework

Dear Mr. Wells,

On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Environmental Defense Fund, James River Association, Lynnhaven River NOW, Surfrider Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, Virginia Conservation Network, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, and Wetlands Watch, we are pleased to submit comments to the General Notice of Public Comment Forum – Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan Phase 1 and the Notice of Public Comment Forum – Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Planning Framework. We have combined our comments to these two documents in recognition that the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Planning Framework (Framework) and Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan Phase 1 (Phase 1 CRMP) are both the foundation and framework for future resilience planning and engagement the Commonwealth is required to undertake pursuant to Chapter 495 of the 2022 Acts of Assembly requiring a Virginia Flood Protection Master Plan by 2026, a revised Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan by the end of 2024, a Community Outreach and Engagement Plan by the end of 2022, the establishment and engagement of a Technical Advisory Committee, and the integration of these plans and regular reporting.^[1]

The undersigned organizations participated in and supported the development of the Phase 1 CRMP and/or the Framework 1 documents and strongly support continued planning, implementation, and investment in the above processes as required by Virginia Code to ensure a resilient future for all Virginians. 

The findings of the Phase 1 CRMP are stark. Without action, the number of residents living in homes exposed to major coastal flooding will nearly triple from 360,000 people to nearly 1 million by 2080. Flood damages will skyrocket 1,300%, from $400 million to $5.1 billion annually. Without action, nearly 90% of tidal wetlands and almost 40% of dunes and beaches may be permanently inundated by 2080. The plan also begins the process of identifying where high flood risk overlaps with increased socioeconomic vulnerability, using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability Index methodology, to determine risk hotspots for potential intervention. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) hosted initial community meetings in the covered regions to share educational resources and gather community perspectives. This provides a foundation to move Virginia forward, and the undersigned groups are available as a resource and partner throughout that process.

With that in mind, we offer the following comments:

1. Virginia must abide by and fulfill the principles outlined in the Framework.

The principles set out in the Framework should be adhered to throughout subsequent planning and implementation efforts. Those principles require the following:

• Planning must be based upon best available science, and clear guidance should be developed to inform how and when new data will be incorporated into state code, regulations, guidance and programs.
• Underserved and over-burdened communities are often the least able to adapt to flood risk or recover from a flood and may be more vulnerable due to certain risk factors like age or discriminatory processes like redlining. All plans should work to enhance equity among Virginians.
• Nature-based solutions are often cost effective and have many co-benefits and should be prioritized.
• Plans and projects prioritized by the state should focus on the community and regional scale to maximize benefits and leverage resources while tailoring approaches to community need.
• Limited resources must be leveraged and used effectively to enhance protection and adaptation for communities, businesses, and critical infrastructure.

2. The Framework and Phase 1 CRMP represent a crucial initial assessment, and Virginia must now develop a plan of action with careful and robust prioritization of projects and programs.

The Framework and Phase 1 CRMP, initiated by Executive Order No 24 Increasing Virginia’s Resilience to Sea Level Rise and Natural Hazards (2018),^[2] were both a foundational step forward for the Commonwealth and are the building blocks upon which Virginia can build resilience to flooding for all Virginians in a changing climate. However, due to limited resources at the outset of the Framework process and constrained timelines necessary during the preparation of the Phase 1 CRMP, the resulting documents and web resources are assessments rather than plans. Furthermore, while in many ways Virginia has been a leader in flood resilience, efforts have, at times, been disconnected. The forthcoming Phase 2 Coastal Master Plan, Virginia Flood Protection Master Plan, and Community Outreach and Education Plans – coupled with true stakeholder engagement and financial resourcing for implementation – represents an opportunity to synthesize resilience efforts and mitigate the impacts of flood risk in Virginia.

3. 1. Project Database and Data Accessibility for Local and Regional Planning and Implementation

The open data portal and coastal resilience web explorer are excellent starting points to connect local and regional communities with tools and data. This approach should be expanded and deepened across the Commonwealth with additional tools and data sets including sample project designs across coastal and riverine areas and additional floodplain mapping. Data should be collected and available at the finest scale available and include both quantitative data and qualitative data collected from frontline communities to facilitate the incorporation of local knowledge in planning. Processes should be implemented and staffed to support updates of the project database and funding opportunities, both of which will change frequently, particularly in light of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021), which has dedicated over $50 billion to resilience. This massive sum does not even include programs which do not explicitly highlight resilience but may better incorporate resilient principles into infrastructure programs. 

Moreover, when Planning District Commissions (PDCs) and localities submitted “projects” to the open call, many local and regional staff spent significant time learning a new process and entering data for many projects. However, some areas opted out or did not participate fully.  Statewide planning efforts would be enhanced with a complete database of existing projects and programs, which would allow effective prioritization of existing projects and programs and allow for targeted technical assistance or engagement in communities that were chronically underserved, at high flood risk, and had been unable to respond to a data call.

Connecting public and municipal outreach and engagement is essential to ensure the project database is updated continually. Additional DCR staff may be required to help coordinate this work across localities and provide technical assistance to local government staff who already lack capacity to handle this reporting on their own because assessing project needs to include in the master planning process creates a burden on local staff, especially in lower resourced communities. Furthermore, even with time to devote to sharing projects to a statewide database, lower resourced communities may not have the baseline data and planning they need to initiate engineering and design for projects that reduce community-scale flood risk.

4. 2. Establishing Shared Vision and Goals with Measurable Performance Metrics

Due to limitations on public meetings, data collection timelines, and the quality and diversity of data included in the final project database, the Phase 1 CRMP highlighted project examples across regions and by type. Moving forward to the implementation phase, projects will, at some point, need to be prioritized and resourced. It is essential that clear and shared goals with broad acceptance across government and stakeholders be determined as a necessary first step. These goals will support the determination of decision-making processes, the scientific framework, and performance metrics used to evaluate the ability of a project or group of projects to meet those goals and monitor progress over time.

5. 3. Prioritizing Projects and Programs Across Virginia

There is also a need to define both the types of projects and programmatic activities that would qualify for analysis and inclusion in the CRMP. The Prioritization Framework initially proposed for the Phase 1 CRMP included categories for project types (structural flood risk reduction, non-structural flood risk reduction, and nature-based solutions), but combined all programmatic activities such as policies, programs, and capacity building into the non-structural flood risk reduction project category. These kinds of programmatic activities should be considered independent from project types to streamline evaluation of similar activities against one another and benefit chronically underserved communities who need more technical assistance and capacity building resources.

Prioritization should ensure that all regions and localities have the ability to participate actively in the Master Planning process and co-develop solutions, particularly those that are chronically underserved communities facing increased flood risk, many of whom may not have projects already developed and included in the existing project database. DCR technical assistance may be necessary to work closely with communities to identify projects and the agency must be staffed and resourced accordingly.    

Within any newly established prioritization schema, natural and nature-based features must be considered critical infrastructure and preservation of this capacity should be prioritized. Additionally, baseline screening is challenging without specific standardizations and measures to ensure consistency, which do not yet exist in the Phase 1 CRMP.  Project criteria must be objective and consistent across project type and benefits focusing on the Framework Principles as a foundation and incorporating compound flood risk and future resilience. The Phase 2 CRMP and statewide plan must evaluate projects under a comprehensive needs assessment based upon the Framework principles.

6. Virginia must plan for flooding resilience statewide.

The Phase 1 CRMP and Framework applied only to the coastal zone. However, we have seen far too frequently that Virginians outside of the coastal zone, like those in Buchanan County in August 2021 and July 2022, are increasingly impacted by severe flooding often driven by high intensity rainstorms. The Community Flood Preparedness Program (CFPF) rightly supports planning, capacity building, and projects statewide, but this results in a policy disconnect.

Effective July 1, 2022, the Commonwealth must embark on not only revisions to the CRMP but also a statewide process to develop a Virginia Flood Protection Master Plan. Though these plans have different deadlines, it is essential that these two products and the key funding source that is the CFPF are coordinated efforts. Additionally, any subsequent implementation and funding plans should be closely linked to drive incentives to participate in planning processes that are backed by capacity-building, data collection, and implementation funding.

7. Virginia must evaluate multiple sources of flooding and account for residual risk.

Climate-induced flooding threatens the lives, livelihoods, and property of communities across the Commonwealth. Coastal Virginia faces the highest rate of relative sea level rise on the Atlantic coast and precipitation is increasing across the commonwealth in terms of intensity, frequency, and the duration of storms. Along with storm surge, land subsidence, and increasing ‘sunny day’ or recurrent flooding from high tides and wind, Virginians face a number of types of flood risks which are increasing due to climate change. This is a fact that the commonwealth already recognizes, as Virginia’s Department of Transportation now requires bridge designs to factor in a 20% increase in rainfall intensity and 25% increase in discharge.

Due to time and data constraints, the Phase 1 CRMP addressed only coastal flooding in the coastal plain. Phase 2 of the CRMP must instead take a comprehensive look at flood risks and the ways in which they will interact to intensify flood events. Similarly, the potential solutions DCR considers should be evaluated based on their ability to effectively address these multiple sources of flooding and reduce the impacts from compound events. Considering these flood risks in silos could result in a project that worsens one type of flooding while trying to solve another, or it could result in DCR overlooking a cost-effective solution with the potential to mitigate multiple types of flooding.

Building flood resilience requires decision-making in the face of ongoing uncertainty, particularly regarding rates of sea level rise and other flood risks. Acknowledging those uncertainties in planning is key to building a plan that achieves resilience today and into the future. The Phase 2 CRMP should consider financial, scientific, and other technical uncertainties while acknowledging that substantial uncertainties remain, especially in regard to climate change. Key uncertainties should be captured in different environmental and socioeconomic scenarios. To accommodate the dynamic nature of coastal and fluvial processes, resilience plans should lay the groundwork for an effective monitoring and evaluation process that seeks to reduce scientific and engineering uncertainty, assess the success of the plan, and support an adaptive management program. Resilience plans should acknowledge that risk reduction systems – both structural and nonstructural – and restored coastal habitats cannot eliminate all flooding risks, and that some degree of residual risk will be inevitable.

8. Virginia must connect the plan with financial resources including those from the Community Flood Preparedness Fund.

9. 4. Connecting the CRMP and CFPF

The CFPF is cited as the key source of resilience funding in Virginia by the Phase 1 CRMP, but DCR has so far failed to make an explicit connection between them. The two are natural partners: the Framework’s guiding principles and the enabling legislation for the CFPF both prioritize community-scale planning as well as nature-based solutions and equity. Explicitly connecting coastal and statewide flood resilience planning efforts with the CFPF will help DCR and stakeholders increase awareness of and interest in these initiatives, while also allowing local governments to leverage funding sources to meet their flood resilience planning and project implementation needs to adapt to a wetter future.

Unfortunately, since the Master Planning process was completely disconnected from the CFPF being launched concurrently but independently, that connection wasn’t clear to participating communities. Public meetings held while the Phase 1 CRMP was under development were informational but had few participants, and those who did attend asked variations of the same question: “Who is going to fix my flooding?” or “Will this work be funded?” Although the CFPF is listed as an essential source of statewide funding for resilience, DCR was not able to communicate a path forward to connect the two DCR programs and show locality staff and members of the public that their engagement in the CRMP development process would lead to tangible projects and funding opportunities to implement them. This must be included in Phase 2, the statewide plan, and made clear throughout the engagement process.  In turn, it will result in a more informed CRMP Phase 2, Statewide Plan and project database.

Other states have made the connection between community co-designed projects and implementation funding. Louisiana‘s Strategic Adaptations for Future Environments, or LA SAFE, was a collaboration between Louisiana’s Office of Community Development and Foundation for Louisiana, this initiative engaged nearly 3,000 individual community members across six coastal parishes in a collaborative, iterative process to outline a vision of development for the next 50 years that will meet the needs of community members. Incorporating input from residents in each parish, the strategies also outline policy and land-use recommendations that are responsive to the economic, population, and social shifts that occur from repetitive flooding and disaster events. Each parish strategy is tied to a community-designed project, ranging from stormwater improvements, mental and public health services, residential buyouts, business incubator, resilient housing/street design, and more. The LA SAFE engagement process was funded by a HUD 2016 National Disaster Resilience Competition grant; funding for project implementation came from a HUD Community Disaster Block Grant - Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grant following Hurricane Isaac in 2012.

10. 5. Federal Funding Opportunities 

With the passage of the IIJA in 2021, Virginia’s communities will need to take advantage of the influx of available resources, either independently or in partnership with the commonwealth. While the CFPF can serve as matching funds and the Phase 1 CRMP data portal outlines existing funding sources – many of which will receive additional funds due to the IIJA – lower-resourced localities still may not have the tools to access these funds without direct technical assistance. Considering the limited nature of Virginia’s CFPF funds as compared with demand, and newly available federal funds outlined in the IIJA, some future project prioritization or scoring criteria could be added to the Phase 2 CRMP to demonstrate alignment with state planning efforts.