Copy this link to view the full comment letter: https://wetlandswatch.org/s/Wetlands-Watch-CFPF-Draft-Guidelines-Comments-13121.pdf

January 31, 2021

Lisa McGee
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
600 East Main Street, 24th Floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE: Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft Guidelines 


Ms. McGee:

Wetlands Watch appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) draft guidelines for implementation of the Community Flood Preparedness Fund (Fund). We were a strong advocate for the establishment of this Fund in 2020. Since its enactment, we have conducted outreach on numerous occasions with nearly 200 stakeholders across the Commonwealth. The following comments reflect information obtained during this extensive outreach and Wetlands Watch’s interviews with over 70 Virginia local government staff, conducted in summer 2020. Additionally, the comments reflect Wetlands Watch staff analysis through our work in the Commonwealth and our review of program documents from other state funds - the state of Washington’s Floodplains by Design Funding program, the Massachusetts Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Grant program, and the Texas Flood Infrastructure Fund. These comments amplify issues raised in a joint comment letter dated January 27, 2021. 

We recognize that establishing a new program is complicated with many unforeseen elements that can be clarified only through an iterative process with stakeholder engagement. However, the very general nature of the initial Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft Guidelines (Draft Guidelines) makes it difficult for stakeholders to develop comprehensive and constructive feedback on critical Fund elements. We realize the Draft Guidelines were drafted to provide summary information and are thereby intentionally nonspecific, but this approach frustrates the development of detailed and effective comments. 

We respectfully request that DCR:

(1) Release for public comment a revised version of the Draft Guidelines to address issues raised during the comment period, as well as more detailed information to address concerns about lack of clarity and specificity expressed during public webinar meetings.

(2) Release for public comment a Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund Grant Manual that reflects comments received during the Draft Guidelines comment period. We request a public commitment that the Grant Manual will be released for a public comment period prior to its implementation.

In order to help focus these processes, we offer the following detailed comments. In these comments we will be referring to the final product of these processes (the aforementioned requested revised Draft Guidelines and subsequent Grant Manual) used by DCR as the “Fund governance documents.” 


PROJECT ELIGIBILITY

Throughout the Draft Guidelines, the term “project” is used several times to refer to all three Fund categories: plans, studies, and projects. The Fund governance documents will need to clearly state if requirements apply to all three categories or to just one. Anytime the term “project” is used in the following comments in reference to the Draft Guidelines, it can be assumed that this refers to all three application categories. 


Eligible Entities

The Draft Guidelines indicate that “localities'' are eligible to apply to the Fund. The need to clarify the definition of a “locality” was mentioned in multiple stakeholder meetings held by Wetlands Watch and by the Secretary of Natural Resources’ office. Additionally, the Draft Guidelines indicate that Planning District Commissions (“PDCs”) are eligible to apply to the Fund, “on behalf of localities.” The Fund governance documents must provide more detail as to what their role would be on behalf of localities. For example, a PDC may submit a project application on behalf of a locality, but would only be a fiscal agent for the locality since a PDC may not have authority to implement a construction project. Their role would be to apply for and manage the grant, but not expressly execute the project. In another situation involving the locality flood resilience plan, the PDC may have the expertise and be asked to develop the plan.

The Draft Guidelines also indicate that Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) and tribal governments are eligible to apply to the Fund. The tribal legal status threshold for eligibility (federally recognized tribe, etc.) needs to be addressed in the Fund governance documents. With entities other than localities eligible to apply to the Fund, the Fund governance documents must address the issue of project eligibility requirements for these other entities. Issues arise such as whether they need to create a resilience plan and have a locality-certified floodplain manager designating areas of recurrent flooding?

In this list of eligible entities, it is assumed that private companies, non-government organizations, academic institutions, economic development authorities, public access authorities, and others can work with and on behalf of localities and other eligible entities as sub awardees, which would offer localities technical expertise, increased capacity, grant management assistance, and more. We support this method as a way to leverage experience and capacity, thereby enhancing those plans and projects financed by the Fund and in turn increasing flood resilience across the Commonwealth. An important sub awardee is an organization specializing in land conservation that could assist localities in acquiring properties repetitively flooded and lands identified as ideal for wetlands migration in the face of sea level rise. The concept of linking land conservation efforts with flood resilience and sea level rise adaptation is aligned with Governor Northam’s Administration priorities. 

As noted in other comments filed, state agencies are not included as eligible entities in the Draft Guidelines. Fund governance documents need to describe a process whereby state agencies apply to the Fund for “studies of statewide or regional significance,” establish criteria for approval of those studies, and report annually on those expenditures. For planning and transparency, it would be prudent to establish in the Fund governance documents a maximum annual percentage of Fund revenues for studies of statewide or regional significance.


Locality Flood Resilience Plan

The Draft Guidelines state “a completed [flood resilience] plan will be required before a locality can apply for and receive funding from the Project category.” This is a significant threshold requirement that should be highlighted more clearly in the Fund Guidance. The Fund governance documents need to provide specific details on the content of such a plan and provide examples of acceptable plans. Concerns about what should be included in local resilience plans was one of the main topics discussed in stakeholder meetings with the Secretary of Natural Resources’ office. Many communities lack capacity to complete a flood resilience plan and will rely upon the Fund to finance a support staff position or contractor to complete the plan. Including examples of acceptable flood resilience plans, as early in the Fund development process as possible, will help eligible entities prepare to meet this requirement. Additionally, it would be helpful if the state offered direct assistance and guidance to localities, either through DCR staff or contracted support, advising on the development of acceptable flood resilience plans.

The Fund governance documents should outline what geographic focus localities should use in writing their flood resilience plans and DCR should review the flood resilience efforts in other states. As an example, Washington state uses a 10-HUC watershed plan as a baseline requirement. Since the focus of the work of the Fund is controlling water flows, a watershed approach may make the most sense for organizing these flood resilience efforts. Maryland has created resources to assist communities, such as their “Planning Guidelines for Local Governments'' document and their “Nuisance Flood Plan Development Guidance.” Additionally, North Carolina produced a guidance document, “North Carolina Resilient Coastal Communities Planning Handbook,” showing how to develop strategies for a resilience plan. These resources should be consulted in developing the parameters for the Fund’s required local resilience plans. 

The Draft Guidelines state that the “minimum requirements [of the flood resilience plans] will incorporate the five Commonwealth Resilience Planning Principles established by the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Planning Framework.” Although incorporating these principles is important for planning in coastal areas, special attention should also be given to non-coastal areas in the Commonwealth. 

The Draft Guidelines state that “grants will only be considered for projects that are part of a locality’s resilience plan.” If interpreted literally, this requirement places a burden on localities to either list every potential project or develop flood resilience plans that are intentionally vague to encompass all anticipated project applications to the Fund. We recommend modifying the language to “projects that are consistent with and linked to a locality’s resilience plan.” If projects must be specifically included in a flood resilience plan to be eligible for project funding, localities would be required to revise their plans every time a new idea was proposed, partnership formed, or study released. We strongly support requiring a flood resilience plan prior to awarding project funding, but encourage DCR to be flexible initially regarding this requirement given the realities of local government planning and project implementation. This is critical in under-resourced, rural, and riverine communities that may not be as advanced in the development of their plans. Full compliance with this requirement can come with subsequent locality plans. 

With a statutory mandate that no less than 25% of the funding is reserved for projects in “low-income geographic areas,” the Fund governance documents should require localities to outline or map these “low-income” areas within their jurisdiction as a part of their resilience plans. Requiring localities to identify these areas will ensure that low income communities are not left behind in flood resilience planning. The plan should also detail outreach efforts to these areas. 

The statute requires that “[l]ocalities shall use moneys from the Fund primarily for the purpose of implementing flood prevention and protection projects and studies in areas that are subject to recurrent flooding as confirmed by a locality-certified floodplain manager.” The extent of these areas should be included in local resilience plans. 

Local resilience plans should be updated periodically to reflect changes in local government capacity and changes in flooding impacts. An updated or appended local resilience plan could be required concurrently with the mandated periodic update of comprehensive plans, hazard mitigation plans, and/or floodplain management plans.