RE: Flood Preparedness and Protection Grants - Draft Manuals for Public Comment

On behalf of Audubon Society of Northern Virginia, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Climate Action, Clean Fairfax Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Rappahannock, James River Association, Lynnhaven River NOW, Natural Resources Defense Council, SERCAP, Inc, Sierra Club Virginia Chapter, Southern Environmental Law Center, The Nature Conservancy, Virginia Conservation Network, Virginia Interfaith Power and Light, and Wetlands Watch, we jointly offer these comments on the draft manuals for the Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF) and the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund (RVRF). The manuals that guide the implementation of these two important flood resilience funding programs play a crucial role in determining their effectiveness and in effectuating key priorities that are included in the statutes that establish them. We therefore appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft manuals and hope that you will closely consider our comments.  

We commend the great strides the Commonwealth has made in the last several years by distributing nearly $100 million to localities statewide for flood resilience planning and implementation grants. As the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) prepares to issue a new application round for both Funds, we urge you to stay on track with the application and award timeline outlined during the recent Annual Virginia Flood Preparedness Coordination Meeting so that communities can continue accessing these critical funds.

The following is a bulleted list of our comments and recommendations on the two draft manuals. The comments are listed in the order in which they appear in the manual(s).

Comments that apply to both the CFPF and RVRF Draft Manuals:

• Although we appreciate the opportunity for local governments and Tribes to receive a variety of funding and financing opportunities through these two programs, we are concerned about DCR over-emphasizing loans at this point in time. As many localities are just beginning resilience planning work – and some are still planning projects that are not yet shovel-ready – grants can serve as a critical catalyst for local governments that may not have the resources or sufficient comfort with project implementation to apply for a loan without prior proof-of-concept. Until localities are more established with resilience plans and project ideas, we recommend DCR maintain the CFPF’s prior emphasis on grants since they are much more accessible for the vast majority of localities than loans and can help convince local leaders to invest their own resources and set up financing for resilience projects at a later time.

• We strongly support the 25% low-income set-aside and emphasis on nature-based solutions required by the CFPF’s enacting statute. We also support incorporating the same emphases into the RVRF, along with a stated preference for capacity building and planning applications. However, past CFPF rounds have failed to award funding to several capacity building and nature-based projects despite those applications scoring well, so the extent to which application scores affect funding decisions has not been clear. We believe it is essential that verified application scores for both the CFPF and RVRF be the primary, if not exclusive, determinant of which applications are selected for funding. Using scores as an exclusive determinant makes the application process more transparent and accessible, by providing time-restricted localities with a frame of reference around which to build their application. We urge DCR to include clarifications in the manuals that will ensure the funding awards made under both programs will closely align with the verified scores that applications receive under the manuals’ scoring methodologies.

• The addition to the “locality-certified floodplain manager” definition is confusing and should be clarified to allow localities to contract with external agents. It is unclear in the draft manuals when an external consultant or contractor with a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) credential could be utilized by a local government to meet CFPF requirements. We appreciate the reference to the permissibility of localities sharing the cost of a regionally employed CFM, but at this time many regions and communities depend on outside consultants. This dependence is due to the limited CFM training that is available in VA and the significant barriers that travel costs, time, and administration present to localities that would otherwise be interested in sending staff to CFM courses to become certified. A rough estimate from the Virginia Floodplain Management Association (VFMA) shows that only 20% of VA localities have a CFM on staff. We recommend clarifying this new language to allow applicants to contract CFMs outside the employ of the locality or regional group of localities. Likewise, we urge DCR to provide more CFM training resources statewide. Additionally, the finalized CFPF manual should reestablish the CFM certification as a priority use for the Capacity Building and Planning category funds.
  • Reference for both manuals: Part I: Introduction and Overview, Section B. Definitions, “Locality-certified floodplain manager”

• We urge DCR staff to provide significant training opportunities for applicants on how to use the WebGrants portal. Both draft manuals require applications to be submitted via the WebGrants portal. Although the WebGrants system can streamline parts of the application process, it can also create a barrier for locality staff who are not familiar with it or with the registration process required to access the application. We urge DCR to offer online training webinars that walk applicants through the WebGrants application process.
  • Reference for both manuals: Part II: General Department Grant Eligibility Criteria and Application Procedures, Section A: Department Conditions and Limitations for Making Grants and Loans, “Submission and Scope”

• Those portions of existing staff salaries directly tied to Fund project management should be an eligible use of the Funds to help make them more accessible to low-income communities. We urge you to reconsider language included in both draft manuals that would make CFPF and RVRF funding unavailable to cover the portion of existing staff salaries allocated to manage plans and projects that are awarded funding under the two programs. In many localities, it is unlikely that the activities that both Funds prioritize can be completed successfully without localities using their existing staff. Allowing CFPF and RVRF funds to be put toward staff salaries, specifically for managing projects awarded CFPF and RVRF funding, would allow localities more flexibility to shift existing staffing resources around to most effectively execute the CFPF/RVRF projects and meet their flood mitigation and resilience planning needs.
  • Reference for both manuals: Part II: General Department Grant Eligibility Criteria and Application Procedures, Section A: Department Conditions and Limitations for Making Grants and Loans, “Eligible Costs”

• Low-income communities should be able to request up to 50% of their full award upfront. We appreciate that both draft manuals would allow successful applicants for grants and loans for activities in low-income communities to receive funding advances prior to completing the work, as allowed in previous CFPF rounds. However, low-income communities rarely have funds on hand to initiate and maintain projects, making reimbursement-only funding opportunities inaccessible. We recommend that both manuals allow for funding advances of up to 50% for grant awards in low-income geographic areas, reducing barriers to project implementation in localities with high risk. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program could be a model for DCR to emulate. We suggest DCR discuss lessons learned and best practices with the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development to improve this process for future funding rounds of these programs.
  • Reference for both manuals: Part II: General Department Grant Eligibility Criteria and Application Procedures, Section A: Department Conditions and Limitations for Making Grants and Loans, “Disbursement”

• Maintenance and stewardship expenses should be allowable costs for applicants. This is particularly important for land acquisition and natural- and nature-based design projects that are able to grow over time but require ongoing maintenance to ensure the nature-based practices are well-established and sustained. Placing the financial responsibility of maintenance costs on the grantee is an unreasonable ask for resource-constrained localities, and it can undermine the priority that resilience funds place on natural and nature-based projects. We urge you to allow the costs and labor necessary to effectively maintain a project to be eligible for funding in all cases in which a maintenance plan is required as this will help ensure the success of the projects that those programs help fund.
  • Reference for both manuals: Part II: General Department Grant Eligibility Criteria and Application Procedures, Section A. Department Conditions and Limitations for Making Grants and Loans, “General Conditions”

• We commend DCR for encouraging applicants to provide letters of support from impacted stakeholders as a component of their application package. To further emphasize the need for stakeholder buy-in, DCR should award points to applications when applicants provide letters of support from impacted stakeholders. Garnering community support leads to more successful and accepted projects, so applications that demonstrate this outreach should be rewarded. However, we also understand that this could be an additional burden for some communities, so we suggest that the points awarded for this component be between 3-5 points.
  • Reference for both manuals: Part II, Section B: Application and Selection Process, 2. Application Contents, “Scope of Work Narrative”

• We appreciate the Administration’s prior commitment to transparency in funding decisions, including the establishment of a Review Committee. However, the finalized manuals should provide more information on the Review Committee, including a list of the specific agency departments and staff that will serve on the committee. Also, we encourage DCR to include staff from other state agencies on the Review Committee to take advantage of the technical expertise they offer, as interagency review panels have been successful for other funding programs, such as those administered by the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation.
  • Reference for both manuals: Part II: Conditions and Limitations, General Eligibility Criteria and Application Procedures, Section B. Application and Selection Process, 3. Application Review and Approval Process, “Committee Review”

• The minimum expected useful life of a project should be extended from 10 years to at least 15 years to maximize the awards provided by these programs, alongside updates to the “Expected Lifespan of Project” scoring criterion. Both draft manuals require projects to have an expected useful life of 10 years or more. In order to maximize the value that the Commonwealth receives in return for its CFPF and RVRF investments, we recommend increasing the expected minimum life span to at least 15 years. Of note, current regulatory guidelines for the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) require a useful lifespan of 30 years when feasible. Since many of the projects likely to be awarded grants and loans from the Funds will require compliance with the CBPA, we recommend aligning these programs with the CBPA requirements to the greatest extent possible. As part of this change, we also recommend adjusting the application scoring criterion for “Expected Lifespan of Project” to eliminate any points for activities with a minimum lifespan of less than 15 years, and increasing the number of points proposed to be awarded for activities with an expected lifespan of over 20 years. 
  • Reference for CFPF draft manual: Part III: Award Categories, Section C. Flood Prevention and Protection Projects, “Additional Information”
  • Reference for RVRF draft manual: Part III: Award Categories, Section B. Hazard Mitigation of Buildings, “Additional Information”

• Soften the requirement that localities replace projects at their own expense or pay back funding they received when projects fail before the projected lifespan. While we appreciate that DCR may want to ensure responsible expenditure of the Funds on effective projects, we have concerns with the requirement for awardees to pay back funds or cover replacement costs at their own expense if a project fails – especially when the project failure may be caused by an “Act of God” or circumstances over which the locality has little to no control. The potential risk of repayment or project replacement could be a strong deterrent for localities to seek these funds, and particularly for those under-resourced localities that do not have the budget to consider undertaking these projects without CPFP or RVRF funding. This requirement could also undercut the Commonwealth’s stated preference for nature-based projects, as localities generally have less experience implementing and maintaining nature-based solutions than they do with implementing traditional, gray infrastructure projects, and the threat of paying to repair or replace a failed nature-based project may deter them from working to gain that experience.  Without the agency staff or resources to commit to monitoring these projects, this requirement will add more burden onto DCR staff who are already stretched thin. We recommend clarifying that localities are only responsible for the cost of project repair or replacement when a project fails within the first three years after installation and the locality’s improper or negligent installation was clearly responsible for the project’s failure. Alternatively, DCR could recommend that localities pursue performance-based contracts to help address concerns about potential project failures.
  • Reference for CFPF draft manual: Part IV: Required Application Components, Section B. Scope of Work Narrative, d. Scope of Work Narrative - Projects, “Maintenance Plan”
  • Reference for RVRF draft manual: Part IV: Required Application Components, Section B. Scope of Work Narrative, b. Scope of Work Narrative - Hazard Mitigation of Buildings, “Maintenance Plan"

Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft Manual Comments:

• We appreciate that DCR is attempting to clarify the “community scale project” definition in this updated manual with the intent to fund projects that will provide flood risk reduction benefits to many people. However, we are concerned that the suggested 10% population threshold could work to exclude projects implemented on public space in a neighborhood (a locally defined, named place, typically made up of multiple streets, with a shared identity) that would provide benefits to the entire neighborhood, as well as other residents of the locality and travelers passing through it. This is problematic for neighborhood-scale resilience planning efforts, which are underway across the state and an important component of many localities’ flood resilience initiatives.
  • Reference: Part I: Introduction and Overview, Section B, “Definitions”

• We appreciate DCR’s transparency regarding match waivers and for increasing the match waiver limit to $50,000 for capacity building and studies; match waivers should also be available for all project categories. Match waivers are an important equity consideration that will allow many under-resourced localities to access the CFPF even with limited municipal budgets. The same considerations are just as important for project implementation as they are for capacity building and planning activities, so we urge DCR to also allow for match waivers for flood prevention and projection projects.
  • Reference: Part III: Award Categories, Sections A-C

• We can understand a number of reasons why DCR is considering capping CFPF grant awards, including to stretch the current resources available in the program and to spread available funding across more localities – and particularly to lower-resourced localities. However, we are concerned that a funding cap could incentivize some localities pursuing projects with costs that exceed the proposed cap to circumvent the CFPF review process altogether and instead make a direct funding request to the General Assembly; this could undermine the priority the CFPF program places on equity and nature based design ultimately result in less favorable outcomes. To ensure that the funding cap is not a barrier to applicants with larger resilience projects in mind, while still encouraging that awards are geographically widespread, we recommend that the cap for grant awards be raised from $5 million to $10 million per applicant.
  • Reference: Part III: Award Categories, Section C. Flood Prevention and Protection Projects, “Minimums and Maximums”

• Expand the list of entities that may own and maintain acquired lands in perpetuity to include qualified conservation organizations. Language included on page 20 and in Appendix I of the draft manual indicates that for land acquisition projects, the acquired property must be “owned and maintained by the locality in perpetuity as an open space or conservation area.” We support requiring the land acquired to be held in perpetuity as open space or a conservation area, but we recommend making clear that localities may partner with land conservation organizations that would either own the acquired property or hold a conservation easement on it. Based on our organizations’ conservation work, we know that maintaining acquired conservation properties can be a significant financial burden for localities that may not have the expertise on staff to steward the acquired lands. Many examples of partnerships between localities and conservation groups for this purpose exist in the Commonwealth, and we believe that conservation organizations that have the capacity to do this work should be permitted to hold the acquired lands. We therefore recommend striking the phrase “by the locality” where it appears in the CPFP manual in this context, and recommend making clear in the manual that organizations eligible to own conserved land through the Virginia Conservation Easement Act and the Virginia Open Space Land Act may also hold ownership and easement interests in the acquired property.
  • Reference: Part III: Award Categories, Section C. Flood Prevention and Protection Projects, “Additional Information”

-- comments continued in part 2 --