January 29, 2021

Ms. Lisa McGee

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

600 East Main Street, 24th Floor

Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE: Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft Guidelines

Dear Ms. McGee,

On behalf of our over 83,000 members and supporters in Virginia, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Draft Guidelines for the Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund (Fund), which presents a great opportunity to invest in flood resilience across the Commonwealth. EDF is a leading international, non-partisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting human health and the environment by effectively applying science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships.

EDF applauds the leadership of the Northam Administration in taking steps to address climate change and commends the Virginia Legislature for passing the Virginia Clean Economy Act and the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act during the 2020 regular session, which enabled the Commonwealth to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and codified the 45% set-aside of RGGI auction proceeds for the Fund with 25% of the Fund set-aside for low-income localities.

With the potential to generate upwards of $75 million annually for flood resilience planning and project implementation across the Commonwealth, the Final Guidelines and subsequent Grant Manuals must provide additional details to ensure localities’ applications are set up for success. Additionally, a robust stakeholder outreach process is needed to ensure transparency and clarity around application requirements and technical assistance must be provided to localities that need it. 

The Fund should emphasize the need to prepare projects to compete for larger federal funding opportunities, such as FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation National Coastal Resilience Fund. Using the Fund to advance projects to be ‘shovel-ready’ – and to offer as local matching funds – will open up the Commonwealth to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars over the coming decades that will allow projects to scale up to fully address the scale of flood risk. Incorporating elements of the BRIC program, including the emphasis on community lifelines and the adoption and enforcement of modern building codes, would make it easier for localities to leverage federal funding opportunities like BRIC alongside the Fund.

EDF supports the application of the Coastal Resilience Master Planning Framework guiding principles to the Fund, as well as the Fund’s emphasis on community-scale hazard mitigation activities that utilize nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk, provide environmental and sociological co-benefits and build resilience. Below, we provide comments in support of developing an effective and equitable Fund.

Scoring Criteria and Prioritization

Transparent, explicit and equitable scoring criteria are critical to ensure localities understand how to design successful applications. Localities with fewer resources need to be supported so they can also submit successful applications. While the 25% set-aside for low-income communities is a good foundation, DCR should provide additional guidelines and support so those communities can actually access the funds available to them. 

If projects that address “community-scale” hazard mitigation will be prioritized for funding, a clear definition for that term should be provided. Similarly, DCR should clearly define which nature-based solutions would be considered eligible or prioritized for funding, and any numerical scoring attached to them. This list could be included in the annual Grant Manual and updated regularly with project examples from past awards as the Fund iterates. It would be helpful, especially for the first several award cycles, for DCR to provide feedback on applications not awarded grants or loans and publish details on all approved grants as examples of successful projects or guidelines so localities can improve their applications over time. FEMA’s Mitigation Action Portfolio (https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_mitigation-action-portfolio-support-document_08-01-2020_0.pdf) provides a good example of this practice.

DCR should provide details and transparency on the application review process, which should be conducted by a panel of reviewers using publicly available metrics and scoring rubric. Specifically, one of the principles is cost-effectiveness; the metrics that will be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a project should be made clear. We recommend not relying solely on cost-benefit analysis, which has historically increased inequities in flood risk for low-income and communities of color. Metrics, such as population size and/or density, number of homes (as opposed to the value of homes) and livelihoods should be included along with avoided damages. 

Initial funding should be used to expand the forthcoming Coastal Resilience Master Plan to a statewide Flood Resilience Plan, thereby clearly identifying state-level priorities that would be prioritized in the scoring criteria. Activities that provide multiple benefits across the ecosystem and community in addition to flood risk reduction should be prioritized, as well as activities with integrated resilience approaches that address both current and future flood risk. Applications that are consistent with state agency goals and plans, such as the Coastal Resilience Master Plan, should also receive additional points. With the Fund’s priority on promoting flood resilience, projects that protect critical infrastructure and support community lifelines should also be prioritized. By aligning the Fund with the BRIC program’s emphasis on community lifelines and 

Because watersheds are not aligned with political boundaries, multi-jurisdictional applications by adjacent localities that include watershed-level approaches and/or landscape-level change should be awarded additional points. Localities that incorporate local stakeholder input or address the priorities of multiple stakeholders in their applications should receive additional points. Planning District Commissions should be tapped whenever possible to help coordinate nearby projects from different applicants that have the potential to positively amplify resilience or inversely, create flooding issues.

The Draft Guidelines note that the forthcoming Grant Manual will clarify the expected cost-share for projects. We recommend waiving cost-share requirements for low-income communities and allowing flexible cost-share for other localities, which could include in-kind match, staff time and/or contributed resources. Due to the lack of details in the Draft Guidelines, including project scoring details and information on cost-share requirements, we strongly recommend DCR provide an opportunity for the public to review and comment on a draft Grant Manual before it is finalized for the first round of Fund awards. Allowing for comprehensive feedback on the annual Grant Manuals will promote transparency and ensure the public can provide meaningful feedback on the scoring criteria and cost-share requirements, both critical elements of the Fund.

Grant Applicability

We support the requirement of a local resilience plan for project applications, but the Draft Guidelines as written lack much-needed clarity. Final Guidelines should provide details on the necessary components of a resilience plan, while also recognizing that there can be no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach given the diversity of Virginia’s localities and geographies.

We recommend the Commonwealth develop minimum standards of a ‘good’ resilience plan.  Resilience plans must consider future flood impacts based on a state-established standard for both sea level rise projections and rainfall intensity that is applicable at a regional scale. Resilience plans should incorporate community-based planning and stakeholder outreach whenever possible to drive community buy-in and allow communities to have a voice in future flood resilience project design. 

We also note that most localities do not currently have the internal capacity to plan for, develop proposals for, or manage these funds, let alone develop a resilience plan; many do not have a “locality-certified floodplain manager” as noted in the Draft Guidelines. Localities – especially in rural and riverine regions – will need sufficient technical support from PDCs, DCR and others in order to be eligible to submit Fund applications. We are also concerned about some localities’ ability to afford longer-term operation and maintenance costs. Project applications should be required to include expected overhead and maintenance costs along with a funding plan.

Program Administration

EDF recognizes the challenges in standing up a new program, which will require additional agency staff capacity, and recommends that DCR be as transparent as possible about overhead costs associated with administering the Fund. This should include an annual fiscal report detailing funds used at the state level for regional studies and data collection as well as overhead and staffing. Applicants should be required to provide annual fiscal reports to be added to the DCR report on project implementation.

We recommend providing funding allocation estimates for the three activity categories (Plans, Studies, Projects) over the next five years, with an emphasis on Plans and Studies. Doing so will  allow localities to plan and build up the resources necessary to design and implement ‘shovel-ready’ projects that will effectively build flood resilience and reduce future impacts while also allowing localities to conduct stakeholder outreach to ensure community buy-in for project applications. This should also reflect the likelihood of a phased approach, as the Coastal Resilience Master Plan will not be available until at least Year 2 to help prioritize activities in coastal regions.

DCR should note whether different start dates or completion deadlines are associated with each activity category, and if timelines differ between grants and loans. DCR should also clarify if pre-application and planning projects are separate from project implementation, as it takes time and resources to obtain project permits and buyouts require flexible closeout dates. Planning awards could likely be on a shorter timeframe and may help drive localities to move from planning to project development and implementation on a shorter timeframe.

Thank you for the work you have done to develop a Fund policy and award program that has the potential to fund transformational flood resilience across the Commonwealth. We look forward to supporting DCR as the Fund Guidelines are finalized and implemented.

Sincerely,

Grace Tucker

Senior Analyst, Virginia Coastal Resilience

Environmental Defense Fund