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

Prioritization of Projects 

The Draft Guidelines provide general outlines for a project prioritization process: “[g]rants will only be considered for projects that are part of a locality’s resilience plan, or determined to be of local, regional or statewide significance by the Commonwealth. In the coastal zone, projects will be prioritized by the Coastal Resilience Master Plan.” This statement needs clarification. In its current form it implies that in the coastal zone, the Coastal Resilience Master Plan will set priorities, overriding local flood resilience plans or a state determination of significance. Should an “or” be added at the end of the first sentence?

The Fund governance documents must detail the process whereby “the Commonwealth” makes determinations of “local, regional, and statewide significance” for a project. The Fund governance documents must delineate those localities covered by the “Coastal Resilience Master Plan” and the prioritization process contained therein. For all other localities outside the coastal zone, the inference is that their Fund applications will be prioritized solely by the locality’s flood resilience plan or if the project is determined to be of “local, regional, or statewide significance by the Commonwealth,” as the first sentence states. There is a clear gap in the planning for non-coastal regions, due to the lack of a master planning document and process similar to the Coastal Resilience Master Plan. It is urgent that DCR develop such a strategic planning process for non-coastal areas and modify the prioritization process accordingly. There is a similar gap in the lack of an entity corresponding to the coastal region’s Technical Advisory Committee. 

The statute gives priority to “community-scale hazard mitigation activities that use nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk.” The Fund governance documents must define “community scale hazard mitigation activities” and provide examples of applications that fit that definition in order for it to be used in prioritization of project applications. 

Similarly, the phrase “Nature Based Solutions'' needs clarification. We strongly endorse the use of nature based solutions and the Fund governance documents need to make these practices a high priority for the Fund. The statute defines “nature based solutions” as: “an approach that reduces the impacts of flood and storm events through the use of environmental processes and natural systems. A nature-based solution may provide additional benefits beyond flood control, including recreational opportunities and improved water quality.” For the sake of transparency, there needs to be a comprehensive list or definition of these practices in the Fund governance documents, with specific examples of what types of projects will be given priority in the selection process.


Scoring Criteria/Process and Project Selection

To ensure high quality applications, there must be transparency in how potential projects will be reviewed and scored. The Draft Guidelines state that “[p]roject selection and grants awards will be determined by DCR in consultation with the Commonwealth Chief Resilience Office and the Special Assistant for Coastal Adaptation.” In order to be transparent, DCR should create standard scoring criteria that will be used to select projects and grant awards/loans. Providing these criteria will increase public confidence in the program, in addition to aiding eligible entities in successful Fund application.

Other states have well-developed program guidelines for their flood fund that need to be studied to inform the development of a scoring and selection process in Virginia. Washington’s “Floodplains by Design Grant Program” offers a well-developed case study for scoring criteria as does Texas’s “Flood Intended Use Plan Grant Manual.” These other state flood fund programs have been operating for some time and their experience will make the development of the Fund governance documents much easier.

The Fund governance documents need to describe the review and selection process in detail and allow for external review where additional expertise is needed, outside of DCR, the Commonwealth Chief Resilience Office, and the Special Assistant for Coastal Adaptation. This review and selection process will need to ensure that the review process accounts for the wide differences in the different physiographic regions of the Commonwealth, producing a diverse range of flood risks. 

As mentioned in the “Match” section of these comments above, there needs to be a delineation in the Fund governance documents as to how the prioritization for “low-income geographic area” will be handled. We also agree with other commenters that there must be proof of outreach efforts to the low income geographic area being used to justify the priority treatment of a project. Meaningful inclusion of those communities in the planning process should be one goal of this priority set aside. 


LOANS

At present, there is scant mention of the loan portion of the Fund in the Draft Guidelines. Localities need clarification on this aspect of the Fund, how it will operate, how the state will determine what applications are eligible for grants versus loans, etc. The statute provides for loan forgiveness of the loan in “low income geographic areas,” but does not provide criteria for that loan forgiveness. The Fund governance documents must provide thresholds or criteria for loan forgiveness and other details on how this portion of the Fund will operate.

In the stakeholder outreach webinars, it was stated by the Secretary of Natural Resource’s office that grants will go to those eligible entities that are less “financially capable” and loans will be allocated to those who are capable. The Fund governance documents must clearly outline this distinction and define what makes an eligible entity “financially capable” enough to receive a loan versus a grant. 


FUND ADMINISTRATION

Grant Manual Updates

In order for the Fund to be most beneficial for localities across the Commonwealth, the Fund governance documents must estimate how the funds will be allocated across application categories (plan, study, project) for the first year of the Fund. This will allow for greater transparency and allow localities to apply for funding based on these allocations. The Fund governance documents should outline how these allocations are expected to shift over the course of the next five years. In the outreach webinars featuring the Secretary of Natural Resources’ office, it was outlined that more money will be allocated to planning and study projects in the early year(s) of the Fund, to allow all localities to reach the same capacity to apply for the project category of funds. It would be helpful if the Fund governance documents outlined the expected allocations of the Fund between these three application categories, as well as how they will shift in the near future (~5 years) to meet the evolving needs of the Commonwealth.

Fund governance documents should include a clearly defined process for allocating the moneys of the Fund between coastal regions and upland/riverine regions. This allocation needs to occur prior to the issuance of a Request for Proposals so that all potential applicants are clear about the total moneys available to each region.

The Fund governance documents should detail how often/when the Grant Manual will be updated in the future. In the outreach webinars featuring the Secretary of Natural Resources office, it was suggested that the Grant Manual will be updated once per year between the grant rounds held from April 1-June 1 and August 1-December 1. Due to the limited amount of time between the two grant round periods, there will not be enough time to adequately update the Grant Manual to provide sufficient advance notice to localities. 

Therefore, DCR should consider either 1) shortening the grant round periods to allow more time in between or 2) only have one annual grant round period to permit for more time to update the Grant Manual. Allocating enough time for the Grant Manual updates is critical to the Fund’s success. For example, if funds are shifted from one grant category to another, thereby limiting another category’s funds, this will impact eligible entities' abilities to respond. Allocators of the Fund’s moneys may want to consider building in flexibility to shift these needs during grant periods; however, these shifts in focus will need to be outlined in detail in any fiscal reporting for that given year. 


Fiscal Transparency/Reporting

In addition to updating the Fund Grant Manual every year, the Fund governance documents need to require an annual report by DCR on Fund expenditures and program operations. This should include (at a minimum) Fund allocation to each application category (plan, study, and project), if and how the requirement of 25% of funds to “low-income geographical areas” were met, how much of the Fund was awarded to coastal areas v. non-coastal areas, and how much of the funds were spent on administrative costs such as funding any full-time employee positions or overhead expenditures to state agencies. The fiscal report also needs to outline how much of these funds were awarded via grant and/or loan.

Adequate fiscal reporting for the Fund is necessary so that eligible entities who wish to apply for the Fund can do so in confidence. Transparent fiscal reporting allows prospective applicants to have trust that their work in developing project proposals is worthwhile. This is a widespread concern for many local officials across the Commonwealth, as many do not have dedicated employees to apply for large grants/loans on top of their daily workload. Therefore, making the application process and fiscal reporting of the Fund as transparent and accessible as possible is essential to the success of the Fund. 

It would also be helpful if DCR established a website to highlight the specific plans, studies, and projects to which the funds were awarded. As an example, the state of Massachusetts has done this with their “Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness” (MVP) grant program. The MVP website outlines descriptions of all the grant projects awarded, as well as detailed deliverables for all of the completed projects. This creation of this resource would be beneficial to eligible entities so they can have insight on what types of plans, studies, and projects are expected to be funded. 

In the report on the expenditures and program operations of the Fund, DCR and the Department of Environmental Quality need to detail their expenditures of Fund moneys. The statute provides for DCR’s access to the moneys in the Fund, “in accordance with a memorandum of agreement with the Department.” The Department of Environmental Quality is authorized in the statute to use 3% of the total revenues from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) funds to, “carry out statewide climate change planning and mitigation activities.” Given the projected amount of RGGI revenues, these administrative outlays in support of the Fund will be significant and will come at the expense of Fund moneys being available for projects. These expenditures require reporting and oversight in order to maintain trust in the operations of the Fund. 


We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s draft guidelines for implementation of the Community Flood Preparedness Fund. We welcome the opportunity to answer any questions or provide additional information as requested. 

Sincerely,

William “Skip” Stiles, Jr. 
Executive Director
Wetlands Watch

Resources and links referenced:

Wetlands Watch Local Perspectives on Flood Fund Document: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56af7134be7b96f50a2c83e4/t/5f4fb29ff4f8f06edd9a0429/1599058592031/Community+Flood+Preparedness+Fund-Locality+Perspectives.pdf

Maryland’s Planning Guidelines for Local Governments: https://wetlandswatch.org/s/ClimateChangeImpactAreas2.pdf

Maryland’s Flood Mitigation Grant Ranking: https://wetlandswatch.org/s/FY22-MDE-Flood-Ranking-Criteria.pdf

Maryland’s Nuisance Flood Plan Development Guidance: https://wetlandswatch.org/s/NuisanceFloodPlan.pdf

Massachusetts’ Municipal Vulnerability Grant Program: https://www.mass.gov/municipal-vulnerability-preparedness-mvp-program

North Carolina’s Resilient Coastal Communities Planning Handbook: https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Coastal%20Management/Resilience/20-21-phase-1---2-applications/RCCP-Planning-Handbook-19NOV2020.pdf

Texas’ Flood Infrastructure Fund: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56af7134be7b96f50a2c83e4/t/5ff7a52648de2d43d54f02e1/1610065205166/Texas-Flood_Intended_Use_Plan_3_16_2020+%282%29.pdf

Washington state’s Floodplains by Design: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56af7134be7b96f50a2c83e4/t/5ff7a827a33db86713c2370a/1610065964378/Wash.pdf