Norfolk and Virginia Beach are particularly threatened with rising sea levels and increased tropical storms. The aftermath of Hurricane Sandy demonstrates the destruction coastal urban cities face when hit with a hurricane. Hampton roads could see the worst coastal flooding since 2015. Because of the urgency of the situation, Hampton Roads needs to be a main priority in the Community Flood Preparedness Fund. In high-risk zones, new construction should be restricted. Examples of structures that should be built with the fund: sand dunes with sheet pile reinforcement, flood walls, and horizontal sector gates. Additionally bridges and roads can be raised near key flood zones.

Thank you

Prince William County finds this funding source encouraging to prepare flood resilience plans and for the implementation of flood hazard mitigation projects.  We would like to see that a portion of the grant funds are earmarked/dedicated to support local planning or project implementation that may not meet the threshold of state or regional significance in scale.  It would be very helpful to support local planning and implementation projects geared toward mitigating flood hazards.  We support DCR's efforts to introduce this new source of funding.

Marc Aveni

Assistance Director of Public Works, Environmental Services

Prince William County

With climate change, most of VA is expected to suffer from BOTH drought and flooding.  It would be helpful if you could help communities design and fund projects that address both of these hazards.  It would be a shame if all monies from the fund go to flooding, leaving VA citizens unprotected from the other hazard.  If you know of any VA government planning that specifically deals with drought planning, I would appreciate hearing from you about it.  Thank you. 

Coming from a municipality that is challenged with maintaining and repairing a river-adjacent greenway trail in the face of increasing flood events, we would appreciate multi-use trail systems being supported with this funding. Our Riverwalk plays a major role in providing alternative transportation and in supporting environmental health, public health, quality of life, tourism, economic development, and equitable access to recreation. Our greenway is one of many that follow bodies of water and lie in floodplains. We hope this grant will include trail projects.

Bill Sgrinia, Danville Parks and Recreation Director

Stephanie Lovely, Danville Parks and Recreation Services and Facilities Planner

Suggest reviewing/ensuring alignment with the guidelines provided in the "Building Local Community Resilience Against Climate-Related Flooding" report from our mutual partners of the Local Government Advisory Committee at the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

Report: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/19528/2020_local_government_forum_report.pdf

Appendices: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/19528/2020_local_government_forum_appendices.pdf

Unsecured and sunk vessels that move during a storm event pose significant threats to insurable and uninsurable private and public property. Removing these vessels before a storm reduces the likelihood of loss of life and property damage during a flood event. Vessels that are sunk and/or abandoned are a threat to flood mitigation measures including living shorelines and shoreline stabilization structures meant to improve resilience. Sunk and abandoned vessels will move with great destructive force, destroying anything they encounter, including docks, houses, yards, trees etc. In addition, abandoned and derelict vessels (ADVs) threaten safe navigation. Removing ADV before storms arrive will reduce the potential for such destruction to occur.

A work group was started in late 2020 to examine solutions to ADVs in Virginia’s coastal waters, rivers, and inland lakes. The work group includes representatives from pollution regulatory agencies (state and federal), marine law enforcement, marinas, Tribes, nonprofit organizations, the boating community, coastal managers, coastal policy experts, and other interested parties. The work group is facilitated by Clean Virginia Waterways of Longwood University and the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program. This webpage has more information: http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/ADV.html

I urge the Community Flood Preparedness Fund to include in its project eligibility requirements support for local communities, Planning District Commissions, law enforcement, and others to prevent, inventory, remove, and dispose of ADVs based on the recommendations that will be coming from the Virginia Abandoned and Derelict Vessel Work Group.

There are thousands of pre-1970 traditionally built properties in high risk areas.  These properties are inherently resilient in terms of building materials.  To date, most attention has been paid to new construction or properties that are in extreme risk.  Some of this funding should be directed toward the majority of the properties so that we can identify best practices to address buildings with materials that are salvageable after innundation, and buildings which are experiencing impacts from nuissance flooding and small events.

The Community Flood Preparedness Fund is a great opportunity to invest in resiliency efforts to combat climate change. As noted, the funding for this new grant program is coming from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) for carbon allowances. As a mitigation program, it is important to note that forests and wetlands serve as some of the most critically important sequesters of carbon. They also are important natural resources for filtering stormwater and preventing flooding. 

I am delighted to see the Fund will provide a long-term, consistent funding source to promote flood resilience in Virginia and that one of the priority solutions is the preservation of open space. However, the Guidelines should be further refined to explain how this will be done and which partners are best suited to assist.

Also, is the word protection used to imply a perpetual conservation easement versus acquisition of fee simple title. The use of easements is not once referenced in the guidelines. Should they not play a role to ensure the investment of the fund are enforceable?

As it relates to eligible entities, should state agencies and 501(c)3 non-profit land trusts not also be included? State agencies support significant land preservation. Likewise, accredited land trusts should be eligible as a tool to assist in the protection and acquisition of the properties. It should be noted that many urban localities do not have a Soil & Water Conservation District or a government-operated land preservation program. They relay on the partnership with non-profits. This is critically important in underserved communities where the locality may not have the capacity to prepare grant applications and facilitate the land acquisitions or easements. 

Finally, other activities that are funded through the grant guidelines would suggest that dams are reasonable projects. "Construction of new infrastructure, or modification of existing infrastructure, necessary to reduce flooding or mitigate flood damage or risk." How are these considered in connection with natural resource conservation? Are these publicly or privately owned dams? Will grant funds be available to support maintenance of private dams?

I welcome the Community Flood Preparedness Fund and look forward to assisting in its implementation to conserve and protect our land and water resources during this era of dramatic climate change.

Sincerely,

Parker C. Agelasto

The Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), a non-profit organization with a near fifty-year history of promoting and protecting the rural economy, natural resources, history and beauty of Virginia’s Piedmont, respectfully submits the following comments regarding the draft guidelines for the Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund (the Fund).

PEC was, and remains, an enthusiastic supporter of the Commonwealth officially becoming the first southern state to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in July 2020. As Secretary of Natural Resources Matthew J. Stricker noted at the time, “RGGI provides a framework for meaningful action on climate change” that will help to “capture the environmental, health, and economic benefits from the clean economy for all Virginians.” PEC is grateful to the Northam Administration for its leadership on this issue in ensuring that the Commonwealth took this long overdue step to help combat climate change and reduce carbon pollution. We also commend the General Assembly for passing both the Virginia Clean Economy Act and the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act during the 2020 regular session, the latter of which created the Fund that we comment on today.

Given that the Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund could generate as much as $40 million per year for flood resilience projects and planning across the Commonwealth, we believe that it is critically important for regional equity to be a guiding principle in the administration of this Fund and grant award decisions. The Commonwealth appropriately invested a significant amount of time and resources in developing the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Planning Framework to help inform the development and implementation of Virginia’s first Coastal Resilience Master Plan. The Commonwealth demonstrated the importance of ensuring that Virginia’s coastal communities have the resilience framework and planning in place to adapt to rising seas, increased nuisance flooding, and more frequent and intense storms that result from climate change -- this same level of commitment is necessary for all regions of Virginia.

There is a significant degree of variance in the extent to which localities across the Commonwealth have access to both the data and staff capacity necessary to develop actionable and effective climate and flood resilience plans. In many of the state’s rural counties, which have vastly different concerns with regard to climate change impacts than coastal Virginia, these needs are often particularly acute. Moreover, in many parts of Virginia, particularly the inland regions, the current 100-year flood maps are in dire need of updating. In certain regions, these maps are so outdated as to impede the ability of landowners and localities to make informed land use decisions. In short, numerous communities outside of coastal Virginia have significant needs with regard to the data and planning necessary to identify and undertake meaningful climate and flood resilience projects, and it is incumbent upon the state to help bridge these gaps.

Accordingly, PEC proposes that at least 25 percent of the annual grant funds awarded by the Fund go towards applications in the categories of (1) planning, and (2) studies and data collection of statewide and regional significance. Doing so will help to ensure that localities in all regions of the state have the opportunity to develop comprehensive climate and flood resilience plans that can serve to inform future applications to the fund for project specific grants. This would help to create a more level playing field with regards to the project grants and make it less likely that any locality or region would be at a disadvantage in identifying and developing shovel ready projects.

PEC appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and we look forward to this fund helping to ensure that communities in the Virginia Piedmont and across the state have the data and support they need to develop resilience plans and meaningful projects to combat the impacts of climate change.

Ms. McGee:   

The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) 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). Pew strongly supported the Fund’s establishment pursuant to the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act (Act) and remains grateful to Gov. Ralph Northam’s leadership in championing its authorization and ongoing implementation.

In their current form, the draft guidelines provide a broad outline for the structure and mechanics of the Fund. The guidelines reinforce the statutory requirements set out in the Act, namely prioritization for nature-based and community-scale flood mitigation projects, as well as a commitment to assist low-income and under-resourced communities. Pew appreciates that those aspects are included; however, several threshold issues remain unaddressed in the Fund’s draft guidelines which are essential for the public to meaningfully review and participate in the comment period. In particular, Pew encourages DCR to outline critical components such as how the Fund’s guidelines will ensure statutory requirements for how low-income community grants are met, how the Fund will balance grant opportunities with loans, and how the Fund will establish loan underwriting requirements. As such, Pew concurs with and fully supports the joint comment submitted by Wetlands Watch and reinforces the request that DCR “modify the Fund guidelines to include as much specificity as possible… and seek additional comments on those modifications.”

Additionally, Pew submits the following comments for specific consideration:

1. The Fund should address flood risk comprehensively and throughout the        Commonwealth

It is imperative that Fund guidelines ensure inland and riverine localities outside of Virginia’s Coastal Zone – and therefore are not contemplated in the Coastal Master Plan – have equitable opportunities to access the Fund as both an essential mechanism to comprehensively address the Commonwealth’s flood risk, but also to secure long-term and widespread support for the Fund itself. Pew urges DCR to address this apparent disparity either within modified guidelines or within the proposed grant manual.

2. Planning is critical, but should not present an obstacle to immediate action

Pew fully supports Fund guidelines emphasizing the need for planning, particularly across watersheds and jurisdictional boundaries. Carefully considered plans will allow localities and the Commonwealth to make durable and effective investments in flood risk reduction and to avoid short-sighted solutions that fail to account for future flood risks. Planning based on scientific modeling of watersheds will also help to ensure that flooding solutions employed in one community do not simply transfer risk onto another area. In this regard, we wholeheartedly endorse expanding flood mitigation planning to inland communities beyond Virginia’s Coastal Zone.

However, we believe planning and project investments can occur in tandem. We are specifically concerned that several localities in the Commonwealth with documented histories of flooding could benefit from modest investment in proven risk reduction solutions – such as improvements to drainage and stormwater systems, as well as nonstructural mitigation activities including buyouts – but may face unreasonable delays while comprehensive plans are developed. To address this concern, Fund guidelines should provide time-limited accommodations for communities where engagement and planning efforts are nascent or yet to commence.

Under one approach, the Commonwealth can create appropriate criteria and benchmarks to guide development of flood plans and offer technical assistance to localities in their planning process. It can concurrently allow units of local government access to funds addressing identified National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) repetitive loss properties, if mitigation actions for those properties have been proposed in existing and approved hazard mitigation plans created in accordance with federal guidelines. In our view, these sorts of reasonable, though temporary, accommodations should be spelled out in Fund guidelines.

Pew further recommends Fund guidelines include explicit information on what portion of the Fund is anticipated to be used for studies, staffing, or technical support by the Commonwealth and how those budget line items will be determined. We recognize the Act allows for reasonable management costs associated with the Fund, but we are hopeful those costs will be limited. In supporting the Act, Pew envisioned the Fund as a complement to and enhancement of – rather than a replacement for – existing programs. Pew is hopeful the Fund’s capacity to assist local communities is not curtailed by excessive program administration costs. 

3. Project application requirements and evaluation criteria should be outlined in detail for public review

The Commonwealth should develop threshold requirements all applications must meet for project funding consideration. Threshold requirements should include, at minimum:

1. 1. Quantifiable flood risk reduction benefits provided by the project based on a scientific understanding of current flood risk, primary drivers of risk, and future risk projections
   2. Estimates of the life-cycle costs of the project, including anticipated operations and maintenance expenses, as well as documentation illustrating how costs will be addressed
   3. Meaningful engagement with impacted residents and businesses – including specific engagement with socially vulnerable and historically marginalized residents – illustrating public support for the project

Once an application meets threshold requirements, the Commonwealth should utilize scoring criteria to rank each proposed project. Scoring criteria should be transparent and easy to understand for units of local government as they prepare their applications.

Specifically, scoring criteria should incentivize the following:

1. Consideration and prioritization of green and blue infrastructure – nature-based solutions – over hardened gray infrastructure
2. Multi-jurisdiction collaboration within watersheds and river basins
3. Strategic targeting of repetitively flooded properties and assets
4. Benefits to low income, socially vulnerable, and historically marginalized communities
5. Consistency with established Commonwealth priorities, including those outlined in the Virginia Coastal Master Planning Framework
6. Equitable and meaningful public engagement
7. Multiple project co-benefits (e.g. improvements to air and water quality, community recreation and quality of life, job creation, habitat restoration, greenhouse gas mitigation/sequestration)
8. Risk reduction benefitting critical service facilities and economic and community lifelines (e.g. hospitals, schools, major employers, transit hubs)
9. Financial leverage, including through nontraditional sources such as land and in-kind contributions
10. Adoption and implementation of higher standards, including those governing land uses, building and construction codes, and stormwater management
11. Development of thoughtful and creative metrics tracking long-term project impacts

Finally, Pew encourages the Commonwealth to consider holistic approaches that have been employed by other states, such as Washington’s Floodplains by Design program (FbD). FbD focuses on extensive outreach and engagement with residents and stakeholder groups based on common interests and shared bodies of water, facilitating a process to identify mutual concerns and priorities across sectors and political boundaries. The resultant projects are notable for their diverse benefits (e.g. salmon habitat, agriculture, business continuity) and their ability to benefit multiple jurisdictions by addressing the drivers of risk and the ecological health of watersheds.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward to future stakeholder discussions as DCR releases additional documentation for public comment. We are available to answer any questions or engage in future dialogue as requested. 

Sincerely,

Yaron Miller

Officer, flood-prepared communities

The Pew Charitable Trusts

ymiller@pewtrusts.org

Copy this link to view a PDF version of this comment letter: https://wetlandswatch.org/s/CFPF-Guidelines-Public-Comment-Joint-Letter-Final.pdf

January 27, 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:        

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments on the Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft Guidelines (“Draft Guidelines”). These initial comments summarize the issues we believe are essential to address in modifying the Draft Guidelines to establish a strong funding resource critical to reduce flood risk across the Commonwealth. Transparency and full stakeholder involvement is essential in this process, as this Fund could generate as much as $90 million annually to benefit the entire state, and we appreciate the efforts that the Department of Conservation and Recreation (“Department”), and Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources Joshua Saks in particular, have been making to inform interested stakeholders about the Draft Guidelines during the public comment period.

The very general nature of the Draft Guidelines makes it difficult for stakeholders to develop comprehensive and constructive feedback on the elements of the Fund that during outreach efforts have proven to be of the most interest to stakeholders. During webinars and other conversations with stakeholders, questions repeatedly arose around the project scoring criteria, the definition of what constitutes threshold resilience plans, and many other key elements outlined below. We acknowledge the Draft Guidelines were drafted to provide very general information and are thereby intentionally nonspecific, but this approach obfuscates the submission of detailed and effective comments. 

We request that the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation modify the Fund Guidelines to include as much specificity as possible on the key elements of the Fund included in this comment letter and seek additional comments on those modifications. The updated version of the Draft Guidelines should be comprehensive enough to generate productive feedback that will help develop a more effective Community Flood Preparedness Fund (“Fund”) for the Commonwealth.

During stakeholder outreach, it became apparent that details on many important aspects of the Fund were likely to be pushed off to the development of a comprehensive Grant Manual and scoring criteria for the Fund. If this is the approach employed, the development of the Grant Manual and scoring criteria should be a high priority so they can be issued in time to undergo a full stakeholder review and comment period. We request a public commitment that the Fund Grant Manual and scoring criteria will be released for public comment.

The following is a list of the issues that arose repeatedly as necessary to be addressed in the formative documents for this Fund. These issues are paramount for the Department of Conservation and Recreation to address in both the revised Draft Guidelines and subsequent Grant Manual:

1. Outline the specific scoring criteria for grant and loan applications to the Fund
2. Outline how the Fund will operate to meet the requirements of the original legislation, such as the 25% allocation to low income geographic areas, prioritization of nature based solutions, and what constitutes “community-scale,” and explain how the scoring criteria will help ensure these legislative requirements are achieved
3. Include specific guidance on what constitutes an approved local or regional Resilience Plan, with an example if possible
4. Describe the application process and administration for at least the first year of the Fund. Specifically, the Draft Guidelines should explain how often money is awarded, the application process and deadlines, the kinds of projects allowed, and how the local match will work (e.g., how will the sliding scale operate and will it be detailed in the Grant Manual or known only to Department staff?). 
5. Provide estimated percentages of Fund allocations for the three categories of activities (plan, studies, and project funding) for at least the first year of the Fund, in addition to an estimated allocation for studies of state and regional significance
6. Detail how the loan portion of the Fund will operate, as well as the process for deciding whether a loan or grant is applicable
7. Explain the types of projects that will be prioritized in non-coastal areas (the Draft Guidelines note that projects in the coastal zone will be prioritized by the Coastal Resilience Master Plan)

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these summary comments and look forward to future stakeholder discussions as the Department releases additional documentation for public comment. Our organizations are available to answer any questions or engage in future dialogue as requested.

Sincerely,

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

Daria Christian
Executive Director
Friends of the Rappahannock

Kristin Owen
President
VA Floodplain Management Association

Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft

Questions and comments from the ASFPM Flood Mitigation Committee, January 2021

1. The draft states that “Priority shall be given to projects that implement community-scale hazard mitigation activities that use nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk.”  How is “community-scale” defined?  Need clarification for this. Also perhaps a priority element for project and planning should be added for repetitive loss areas and “worst first“ prioritization language?

2. The draft states that “Localities 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.”  Does the term ‘locality-certified floodplain manager’ mean that this person must be a nationally Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) as per ASFPM’s certification program?  Would this mean that if a community doesn’t have a CFM on staff, they are ineligible for the program?

3. One of the guiding principles stated is “Understand fiscal realities and focus on the most cost-effective solutions for protection and adaptation of our communities, businesses and critical infrastructure.”  Does the term ‘cost-effective’ indicate that there must be a Benefit Cost Analysis conducted, similar to the FEMA model for this? Could a more progressive analysis be performed instead of using FEMA’s tool?  Along the same line, the draft also states “In administering the Fund, the Commonwealth will strive to ensure that as much funding as possible is allocated to flood reduction projects that will provide an appreciable  flood mitigation benefit.”  What exactly does the word ‘appreciable’ mean?

4. There are questions arising from this draft statement: “Whether it is the preservation of open space, the construction of levees and flood walls, updating stormwater or septic systems, strategically relocating homes, businesses, or infrastructure, or alternative solutions to flood risk reduction, the Fund will provide a long-term, consistent funding source to promote flood resilience in Virginia.”  Levees and flood walls are not considered nature-based solutions, which has been a stated priority in the draft.  How would such projects rank in the overall desirable approaches to loss reduction?  And as pointed out above, how can a ‘septic system’ be considered a ‘community-scale’ project?

5. The draft states “Plans should  also inventory critical infrastructure that may be at risk from flooding events including water supply, transportation, schools, health care, dams, levees, and other vital assets  of a community and including options for adaptation, protection, or relocation.”  Perhaps the use of language that speaks to the FEMA Lifelines could be used here to add consistency between both planning processes and to bring attention to the Lifelines as criteria for future project grants…

6. Also under planning activities is this statement: “New or updated delineations of areas of recurrent flooding, stormwater flooding and storm surge vulnerability in coastal areas that include projections for future conditions based on sea level rise, more intense rainfall events or  other relevant flood risk factors.” Might want to add in “proposed future land-use” as a consideration for an approved planning activity.

7. Also under eligible planning activities is this: “Costs associated with staff training in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), floodplain management, and  Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) designation.” May want to include training costs for building codes and/or code enforcement.

8. For watershed planning efforts is there a possibility to add consideration for agricultural impacts and how these may support resilience goals?  Also on watershed planning efforts it may be practical to include basin level priorities to address basins and subbasins that have cumulative impact on regional flooding.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this promising and much needed initiative by the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Please see my comments below:

1. Will the Commonwealth provide grant-development support to communities with limited resources? Not having a grants manager or a technical writer may put these communities at a disadvantage. It is common knowledge that a professionally written application is typically ranked higher in competitive programs. Recommend having staff dedicated to providing technical writing support for small impoverished communities or allow reimbursement for costs related to consulting services.
2. Can the funds be used to match Federal grants?  It should be clarified within the document. 
3. “Plan and implement an education and outreach strategy for communities that have been traditionally underserved or particularly vulnerable to current and future flood risk to ensure residents understand opportunities for resources and support and allow for full discussion of options that respect community perspective while enhancing protection and resilience.”
1. Focus should remain on educating residents, as sometimes local officials are too overwhelmed to fully understand what the community really wants.  Specially, during the ongoing COVID testing and vaccination efforts. 

 Sincerely,

Juan Nieves

Program Manager

EM Partners, LLC

Juan@EM-Partners.com

Dear Ms. McGee:

          The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) would like to provide the following comments on the Draft Guidelines developed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (“Department”) to implement the Community Flood Preparedness Fund (“Fund”).  SELC is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that works throughout Virginia to promote policies and laws that protect our environment, strengthen our communities, and improve our quality of life. This letter is intended to supplement the comments and recommendations included in the joint comment letter we signed onto dated January 27, 2021.

          At the outset of these comments, we would like to voice our appreciation for the significant effort Governor Northam and his administration have put into making Virginia more resilient to flooding.  As the Governor has noted, flooding is Virginia’s most common and costly natural disaster, and this statewide problem will only continue to grow as more extreme rainfall, sea-level rise, and other effects of climate change increasingly impact the Commonwealth’s communities and natural resources.^[i]  We are grateful the Administration has taken a number of significant steps to increase climate resiliency and begin to position Virginia as a national leader in addressing this growing threat.

          A significant step—and most relevant for these comments—was the Administration’s work during the General Assembly’s 2020 regular session to improve and advance House Bill 981, which permanently established the Fund as a revenue source for flood prevention and protection efforts and coastal resilience work in communities throughout the state.  As enacted, the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act dedicates 45 percent of the revenues from Virginia’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to the Fund, providing a substantial and steady revenue stream for undertaking this crucial work.^[ii]

          In our view, the Fund and associated implementation program have the potential to become a national model for tackling flood risk and coastal resilience through cost-effective, nature-based solutions that can help address, rather than exacerbate, socioeconomic disparities.  Conversely, without the proper structures and incentive systems in place, the Fund runs the risk of over-promoting hard infrastructure approaches.  Hard infrastructure is not a suitable solution in every location, and these projects can be environmentally destructive and too frequently transfer flood risk and other damage from one area to another—often with harsh consequences for lower-income communities.  The Guidelines ultimately adopted by the Department will play a large role in determining where the Fund falls on this broad spectrum.

          We believe the Draft Guidelines presented to the public include some valuable signals of what the Administration intends the Fund to achieve.  For example, we are pleased to see that the five “Commonwealth Resilience Planning Principles” listed on page 2 reflect the five “Guiding Principles” from the Virginia Coastal Master Planning Framework released by the Governor’s Office last fall.^[iii] As the Draft Guidelines note, those principles can be applied to flood and climate resilience throughout the Commonwealth, and we believe they provide a solid foundation on which to implement the Fund. 

          However, we are surprised by the lack of information and detail included in the Draft Guidelines about how the application review and selection processes will be designed to reflect the five Resilience Planning Principles.  This point is particularly important in light of the fact that at least two of the Principles—prioritizing nature-based solutions and addressing socioeconomic inequities—are embedded as requirements of the Fund in its governing statute.^[iv]  It is therefore crucial that the Fund be implemented in a way that ensures it will achieve these requirements—and that the Guidelines chart a clear course for doing so.  In this key respect, we feel the Draft Guidelines fall short. 

          We note that the Draft Guidelines indicate the Department will issue a grant manual and the scoring criteria that will be used to evaluate grant and loan applications later this year.  Based on the lack of detail in the Draft Guidelines about the proposal review and scoring process, we assume the Department intends to include this crucial information as part of the forthcoming grant manual and scoring criteria.  If we are correct in that assumption, we believe it is essential that the public be provided a meaningful opportunity to provide input on the grant manual and scoring criteria, and that the Department considers that input, before those items are finalized. 

          Even if more detailed information will be provided in the draft grant manual and scoring criteria, key issues still need additional fleshing out in the Draft Guidelines because they are clearly intended to inform the development of the manual and criteria in the first place.^[v]  As such, we believe it is imperative that the finalized Guidelines go further in explaining how the program will be designed to ensure nature-based solutions and projects in low-income geographic areas are prioritized, as the statute requires.  We offer more specific comments and recommendations on these and related points below.

Prioritizing Nature-Based Solutions and Projects in Low-Income Geographic Areas

          As outlined in the Draft Guidelines, section10.1-603.25(E) of the Code of Virginia requires that: (1) “No less than 25 percent of the moneys disbursed form the Fund each year shall be used for projects in low-income geographic areas,” and (2) “Priority shall be given to projects that implement community-scale hazard mitigation activities that use nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk.” We are glad to see that the broader themes underlying both of these requirements—promoting socioeconomic equity and prioritizing nature-based solutions—are reflected in the Draft Guidelines as Commonwealth Resilience Planning Principles, but we are concerned that neither of these themes is incorporated into the “Program Goal” for the Fund on pages 2-3 of the Draft Guidelines. 

          The Program Goal language is important because it establishes the vision for what the Fund will achieve.  As currently drafted, it speaks to how the Fund will prioritize projects that are in concert with floodplain management standards, local resilience plans, and the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan, and it states that the Fund will empower communities to implement action-oriented approaches.  Nothing in the draft Program Goal statement captures the strong emphases that must be placed on nature-based solutions and socioeconomic equity.  We therefore strongly recommend revising the Program Goal to incorporate clear references to promoting nature-based resilience solutions and ensuring flood protection projects are advanced in Virginia in an equitable way.

1. Explaining How Nature-Based Solutions will be Prioritized

          In addition to explicitly referencing nature-based solutions and equity principles in the broader Program Goal, we believe the Guidelines need to include more detail on how these underlying statutory requirements will be achieved.  Turning first to nature-based solutions, we note that the “Project” subsection of the “Grants Applicability” category on page 4 states that “[c]onservation and restoration of floodplains, coastal barriers, and other natural capital” are among several types of projects that will be prioritized for funding.  But the most specific information the Draft Guidelines offer on how these and other nature-based solutions will be prioritized is a statement in the “Grant Award Criteria” subsection that indicates “[g]rants will prioritize green infrastructure and community scale projects through a sliding cost share.”

          A sliding cost share ratio that provides a higher percentage of project funding to nature-based solutions than other types of projects could certainly provide an incentive to localities to devise and submit applications for green infrastructure projects.  However, providing a higher cost share seems unlikely, by itself, to ensure that such projects comprise a major portion of the proposals the Department chooses to fund.  Without incorporating the prioritization of nature-based solutions into the grant scoring criteria through some form of a “bonus” for such projects, we are concerned that hard infrastructure projects like seawalls and bulkheads could still make up the majority of the proposals the Department decides to fund and/or devour the lion’s share of money in the Fund—even at a lower-cost share.

          We were encouraged to hear Deputy Secretary Saks acknowledge that the point system for scoring proposals would need to incentivize nature-based solutions during the January 15 online presentation of the Draft Guidelines.  This important point should be clearly articulated in the finalized Guidelines to ensure it is reflected in the forthcoming grant manual and scoring criteria and future versions thereof. 

          In addition, as a further means of promoting nature-based solutions, we support prioritizing land acquisition and land conservation projects focused on areas containing important natural resilience resources.  Such resources include not only existing wetlands and natural stream buffers, but also marsh migration corridors in coastal areas that will help ensure that key natural resilience systems can survive and continue to function effectively in the future.  We urge the Department to consider ways to prioritize such projects in the scoring criteria, and to also think of “land acquisition” in a broad context that includes the purchase of conservation easements that are often more affordable than fee simple acquisitions and, if intentionally structured to do so, can help facilitate voluntary strategic relocations.^[vi]  

2. Ensuring Funds for Beneficial Projects in Low-Income Geographic Areas

          We believe the finalized Guidelines must also include more detail on how the program will ensure at least 25% of annual disbursements will be used for projects in low-income geographic areas, as required by statute.  The first bullet in the “Grant Award Criteria” subsection on page 5 mentions the requirement (though it should be revised to more accurately identify the 25% as a minimum requirement), but then explains that the Department will assess the fiscal capacity of the applying locality when it considers using a sliding scale based on fiscal health metrics to determine grant award amounts.  Importantly, the definition of “low-income geographic area” included in the statute refers not just to localities, but also to communities within localities, that have a median household income below a certain threshold.^[vii]  This aspect of the Draft Guidelines should therefore be tweaked to make clear that this sliding scale would consider not just the fiscal health of the applying locality, but also the community or communities that the project would benefit, where applicable.

          Further, as noted above with regard to nature-based solutions, using a sliding scale that funds a higher percentage of the project cost based on the fiscal health of the applying locality or the benefiting communities will not necessarily ensure that a sufficient number of proposals in low-income geographic areas will be selected for funding.  We urge you to consider providing some form of a bonus to such projects as part of the point system used to score applications, and a clear statement along those lines should be included in the finalized Guidelines to ensure it is considered during the development of the grant manual and scoring criteria.^[viii]  

          As a final comment in this section, we applaud your inclusion of an important point about equity in the discussion of the types of planning projects that will be prioritized on page 5 of the Draft Guidelines.  A bullet point in that section discusses how a priority will be placed on proposals that develop and implement strategies for outreach to communities that have been traditionally underserved or that are particularly vulnerable to flood risk to “allow for full discussion of options that respect community perspective.”  We strongly support prioritizing outreach efforts along these lines.  Further, we think it is crucial that the application review process ensures that the community (or communities) where a proposed project would be located or that would be impacted by the project have had a meaningful opportunity to learn about the project and its impacts, and are supportive of the application—particularly for projects proposed in “low-income geographic areas.”  Whether and how a particular project would benefit a community can involve a fair amount of subjectivity, and it is essential to include the perspective of the potentially impacted community in the decision-making process.

Use of Fund Resources for State-Level Studies and Needs

          During recent online presentations of the Draft Guidelines, it became clear that the Department envisions some portion of Fund resources being used for statewide studies and state agency staff positions that have a strong nexus to flood resilience.  The Draft Guidelines do not directly address the process that will be used to decide which of those state-level needs will receive allocations from the Fund, and what the allocation amounts will be.  Based on the fact that none of the entities eligible to apply for grants in the Draft Guidelines are state entities, it does not appear the Department necessarily envisions state agencies applying for grants from the Fund (and therefore such projects might not be subject to the same application review and selection processes).^[ix]  

          Although we support using some Fund resources to address key state-level needs that relate directly to flood and climate resilience, we believe it is important to ensure the transparency of those decisions.  We urge you to include a description of the process that will be used to consider and evaluate such projects and the amounts they will be awarded in the finalized Guidelines.  We also strongly recommend including a commitment to provide a report that lists the recipients and amounts of all disbursements made from the Fund for each funding cycle.

Fleshing Out the Processes for Obtaining Loans from the Fund

          Although section 10.1-603.25 of the Code of Virginia requires the Department to establish Fund guidelines regarding the distribution and prioritization of grants and loans, the Draft Guidelines are focused primarily on grants.  We understand that grants are likely to be a more attractive funding option for localities and other eligible entities, but ensuring the Fund program also includes a robust loan element will ensure that some of the Fund disbursements are replenished over time and thereby help expand its reach and effect.  We therefore urge you to provide sufficient detail on the loan application, evaluation, and repayment processes in the finalized Guidelines to enable both the Department and potential applicants to make informed decisions about how best to utilize Fund resources.  

          In closing, thank you for your consideration of these comments and for your work on this important issue.  Please do not hesitate to reach out to discuss any of these points as you continue working on the Guidelines, and we look forward to additional opportunities to provide input as the Fund program is developed.

• Define "community-scale" (Stat. Req. #2)
• Would like to have indicated projects that WON'T receive priority (red flag projects to be wary of)
• Would like to see flexibility in time to complete projects; based on the project, completion times may be significantly different (expect many people will also be making this comment). 

• The guidelines need to be strengthened to better align with the statue language: “Moneys in the Fund shall be used solely for the purposes of enhancing flood prevention or protection and coastal resilience as required by this article” (§ 10.1-603.25, subsection B).
• This is very important because many areas of the commonwealth that do not experience coastal flooding have expressed a desire to utilize the Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF), thereby diluting the Fund and negating the intended purpose of establishing a dedicated funding source to assist coastal communities with the greatest 21st century challenge that will face the Commonwealth: sea level rise.
• The guidelines must be altered to more clearly define the eligibility for the Fund, which should state that all flood protection or prevention projects shall show a direct relationship to coastal resilience, and correlation to the goals, objectives and actions of the VA Coastal Resilience Master Plan, within the Plan’s coastal context. It is not sufficient to merely adjust the scoring criteria to weight higher scores for projects that show a correlation to coastal resilience.
• The Hampton Roads community, as well as other coastal communities throughout the Commonwealth, will face the greatest environmental and economic crisis ever experienced within the Commonwealth, therefore, the CFPF needs to be entirely set aside for coastal resilience, as specifically mandated by § 10.1-603.25, subsection (B) of the statue.
• The statue’s only exception to the coastal context pertains to the lone portion of the statue (subsection E) which references the availability of the fund to assist “inland” and coastal communities across the Commonwealth that are subject to recurrent or repetitive flooding.  However, use of the CFPF for the purpose of adaptation and flood prevention strategies to address recurrent flooding should only be utilized pursuant to a recurrent flooding study being submitted to the state legislature upon request from the legislature; see example recurrent flooding study directed by SJ76ER, Recurrent flooding study for Tidewater Virginia (passed by the VA House of Delegates 2/24/2012, and Senate 2/28/2012).
• Applicants requesting to access the CFPF for adaptation and flood prevention assistance to address recurrent or repetitive flooding should be scored based on their proposal’s correlation to the recommended adaptation strategies from the applicable recurrent flooding study for the subject area.

• It is not clearly understood by the following statement within the draft guidelines; “However, the principles of the Master Plan, even with the obvious geographic differences across the state, can for the most part be applied to the Commonwealth as a whole.”
• If the intent of the Virginia Coastal Master Planning Framework is to incorporate the Framework’s guiding principles throughout all geographic areas of the Commonwealth, then the Framework would state such. It is inappropriate to interpret that the intent of the Framework is to re-program coastal resilience guiding principles, and subsequent funding, throughout all geographic regions of the state. Otherwise, the Framework might not have included “Coastal” in the title or Framework itself. Please amend the CFPF guidelines to align with the guiding principles of the Virginia ‘Coastal’ Master Planning Framework.

The City of Norfolk agrees with the recommendation as submitted in the Joint Comment Letter (Wetlands Watch, CBF, SELC, VCN, VFMA, VA Chapter Sierra Club, FOR), which “requests a public commitment that the Fund Grant Manual and scoring criteria will be released for public comment.”

The Planning category found within the “Grants Applicability” section of the draft guidelines should be amended to permit funding requests for the development of final designs/engineering associated with an eligible project, if the application can clearly outline and justify the probable case for high scoring potential of a coastal flood prevention and protection project following completion of final designs/engineering.  This level of design is required for certain permitting applications, as well as, developing detailed costs and schedules for construction.

The Grant Award Criteria category found within the “Grants Applicability” section of the draft guidelines should be amended to request that regional relative sea level rise projections be used in determining future impacts and address eligibility requirements.

The draft guidelines have been developed with a lack of engagement from the communities most impacted by recurrent flooding. A Commonwealth Flooding Board, focused on coastal and recurrent flooding impacts associated with future conditions, should be created to help guide the scoring criteria and selection process of grant and loan recipients from the CFPF.

Norfolk is concerned with the proposed use of ConserveVirginia for guidance and prioritization of restoration projects as highlighted the first bullet under Grants Applicability- Projects (Page 4).  While ConserveVirginia is an impressive tool that does a good job of identifying conservation areas in rural and suburban areas, it is not as well suited for identifying “restoration of floodplains, coastal barriers, and other natural capital” noted under the first bullet, particular in urban areas.

• • As an example, no areas under the ConserveVirginia categories of Natural Habitat & Ecosystem Diversity, Floodplain & Flooding Resilience, or Water Quality Improvements were modeled in Norfolk, though we have implemented numerous projects under each of these categories, some of significant scale.
    • The tool likewise does not adequately assess smaller scale urban conservation options such as those being reviewed by Wetlands Watch and the Living River Trust.
    • ConserveVirginia should only be used for identification of large-scale conservation areas and should be excluded as a prioritization tool for restoration and smaller scale conservation activities.

Stream restoration is called out as special category under Grants Applicability- Projects (Page 4) and should be included with “restoration of floodplains, coastal barriers, and other natural capital”, so that all nature-based solutions are under bullet one.  Alternatively, other nature-based solutions, such as shoreline restoration, should be called out separately as well to avoid favoritism of any one type of project.

I am responding to your specific request for comments related to Local Resilience Plan criteria.  At present, more than 45 communities in central and southeastern Virginia are preparing updates to their hazard mitigation plans.  These plans must meet standards promulgated by FEMA and the Stafford Act, by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS), and are reviewed by VDEM, FEMA and Verisk (for CRS communities). 

To be blunt, I urge you not to create a new set of planning guidance or standards, but to instead piggyback any new requirements onto existing FEMA/VDEM standards for hazard mitigation planning.  In almost all cases, Virginia communities are assisted by their Planning District Commission and VDEM all-hazards planners in updating their hazard mitigation plans every five years.  These partners oversee and facilitate a thorough planning process that ensures public participation at several stages, as well as consistency across the state.  Each plan sets out a mitigation action plan for individual communities, and in Virginia those action plans skew heavily toward flood mitigation projects.

According to the 2018 Commonwealth of Virginia Hazard Mitigation Plan (p.6-11), VDEM requires all local hazard mitigation plans include flood maps….and repetitive loss strategy.”  Table 3.6-2 indicates flood is a “high risk” hazard in 18 of the state’s 20 local plans, and a “medium risk” hazard in the other 2 local plans.  In other words, Virginia’s communities are already examining flood risk and vulnerability in their hazard mitigation planning process in detail.  Most plans already inventory critical infrastructure and the risk from flooding to those facilities.  Incorporation of several additional guidelines to ensure that the mitigation plan encompasses resiliency standards, as well, is advised versus wholesale creation of a new planning document/process that would essentially repeat existing actions from the mitigation plan.

In fact, the hazard mitigation plan is a perfect vehicle for meeting requirements for a flood resilience plan with just a few minor modifications.  The mitigation actions in each plan are prioritized, and each has cost-benefit analysis overview information.  The plans could be modified to incorporate standards for resiliency mentioned in the draft guidelines such as:

1.  acknowledge climate change and its consequences in the hazard identification and risk analysis (HIRA);

2.  identify socioeconomic inequities of flood risk in the HIRA and show how proposed mitigation actions address inequity (your criteria could provide a sample evaluation scale along the same lines as the STAPLEE evaluation criteria, and/or provide metrics for “low-income” flood-prone areas);

3.  mitigation actions are prioritized in the plan - instruct that mitigation action prioritization must take into account that green infrastructure/nature-based solutions are more likely to be funded via the Community Flood Preparedness Fund – perhaps a secondary ranking for projects anticipated to be funded under this mechanism could be instituted such that a mitigation action might be Medium Priority for the overall mitigation plan, but High Priority under Community Flood Preparedness Fund;

4.  Clearly outline mitigation actions that address vulnerable critical facilities and add options for adaptation, protection or relocation as appropriate (many plans already do this); and,

5.  engage multiple community partners to develop regional flood mitigation actions that have impacts throughout a watershed or region.

Furthermore, the hazard mitigation plan review process with VDEM at the helm need not be duplicated for the purposes of a new plan either.  The 2018 Commonwealth of Virginia Hazard Mitigation Plan, Section 6.9 State Review of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans, outlines the process as follows:  

VDEM mitigation planning staff was involved in the initial development and updates of the local hazard mitigation plans from the grant application through the FEMA final approval. VDEM will not approve or submit a plan to FEMA for review unless it meets all of the FEMA and VDEM local hazard mitigation planning requirements. VDEM regional planners have a 30-day timeline to review local hazard mitigation plans and provide comments, or prepare to submit to FEMA. The PDC submits the plan to VDEM with a request for review and approval, and submittal to FEMA. VDEM provides one electronic copy, one hard copy, and a copy of the plan review tool to FEMA with a letter from the State Coordinator. VDEM requires that all local hazard mitigation plans include flood maps, and that maps be provided for any hazard receiving a ranking of high. VDEM requires a local capability assessment, and that all local hazard mitigation plans include a repetitive loss strategy.

I would also suggest that the final Flood Resilience Plan Guidance, whatever form it may take, be very specific in its requirements and not simply cross reference multiple other documents like the 5 principles of Commonwealth Resilience Planning Principles, Virginia Flood Risk Management Standard, Executive Order 24, ConserveVirginia, and Coastal Resilience Master Planning Framework.  Spell out the requirements and don’t make community planners, many of whom wear many other hats at once, track down or have to infer what is intended.  Boil it down to the most important elements to add to the hazard mitigation plan (or existing Comprehensive Plan) and I think you’ll create much happier planners throughout the Commonwealth.  Merely requiring a community meet the five or six standards and not specifying where those requirements be met (whether it be through hazard mitigation plan, comprehensive plan, or other document) would be ideal in my opinion.

General Editorial Notes:

1.  I noted that the Draft Guidelines refer to these plans by two names at different times, both “Local Resilience Plan” and “Flood Preparedness and Resilience Plan”.  A Flood Preparedness Plan is a very different document and contains readiness and emergency response features that are not necessarily part of a resilience or mitigation plan. 

2.  It’s not clear what a “locality-certified floodplain manager” means, nor how one would confirm that an area is subject to recurrent flooding.  Not all communities in Virginia with flood problems have an ASFPM-Certified Floodplain Manager on staff.  If this is the requirement, that is a big lift for many small towns and rural counties.  NFIP data from Virginia DCR can confirm historic flooding.

3.  Levees and floodwalls are used as examples of ways to reduce the impact of flooding, but they are not typically viewed as green infrastructure.

4.  The Draft Guidelines indicate that “a completed plan will be required before a locality can apply for and receive funding.”  If guidance apart from the hazard mitigation plan is prepared, this will need to better explain what is meant by “completed”.  Will communities be required to adopt the plan by their governing bodies and how often will it have to be updated?  Again, the hazard mitigation planning process already has answers to these questions.

5.  On p. 4 of the Draft Guidelines, under “Planning”, the first bullet suggests that a resilience plan could possibly be incorporated into an ordinance.  An ordinance is not a logical vehicle for transmitting potential projects and identify funding sources and priorities and all of the hazard information that goes along with these ideas. 

6.  On p. 5 of the Draft Guidelines, under “Grant Award Criteria”, the 3^rd bullet indicates that projects need to be part of the resilience plan or determined to be of significance to the Commonwealth.  The word “or” here is significant and suggests that projects need not be in the plan to be eligible.  This is not the case for many FEMA grants funding mechanisms.  Who and how would projects not in the plans be brought forward and confirmed to be of significance?

7.  On. P. 6 of the Draft Guidelines, under “Project Selection”, VDEM is not listed as a consultation partner.  In light of the agency’s involvement in other mitigation grant funding mechanisms for the Commonwealth, this seems odd.  They review and act on FEMA HMGP and other grant programs on a regular basis.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

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

January 31, 2021

Lisa McGee, Policy and Planning Director

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

600 East Main Street, 24th Floor

Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE: Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft Guidelines

The Virginia Center for Innovative Technology (CIT) respectfully submits these comments in response to The Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Public Notice to establish guidelines for implementation of the Community Flood Preparedness Fund (hereby referenced as “the Fund”), released December 7, 2020.

CIT reports to the Virginia Secretary of Commerce & Trade and its mission is to create technology-based economic development strategies to accelerate innovation, imagination, and the next generation of technology and technology companies. Advancing flood sensor technology is a part of this larger statewide economic development strategy.

CIT represents the Commonwealth of Virginia in a partnership with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate to advance innovative flood sensor technology that was developed through a national RFP process. These flood sensor deployments are being led by CIT throughout Virginia, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM). As a Commonwealth entity representing Virginia in a larger national partnership with DHS, CIT has immense interest in the effects the Community Flood Preparedness Fund can have on current and future flood sensor technology advancements and implementation. We believe the best outcome for the Commonwealth involves synergies between these and similar programs throughout the Commonwealth.

Based on grant administration that CIT does on behalf of the Commonwealth, here are some lessons we have learned that helped smooth our grant administration process:

• Define eligible applicants: In this case, it is strongly recommended that local governments, or a political subdivision thereof, be the primary applicant, serving as the contract prime to receive award funds. Co-applicants are encouraged, as localities can leverage the expertise. Eligible co-applicant recommendations include - but are not limited to - non-profits, academic institutions, utilities (e.g. Appalachian Electric Power for its interests in hydroelectric power production), and for-profit firms that provide necessary technology and materials for the proposed project. If a Planning District Commission (PDC) applies, it should be noted that they are applying on behalf of one or more of the local governments that it represents, because most do not have authority to implement construction projects, or engage in similar project activities.
• One application per local government: To reduce paperwork and staff review time/resource expenditures, there should only be one application per locality, even if that means there are several projects clearly identified within the application. If grant funding alteration is deemed appropriate for the Fund by DCR (e.g. funding remains, but not enough to award for the entire application), project areas within the application can be adapted, rather than rejecting the entire application to ensure project areas still get funded. To fund some of the projects from within an application, it is recommended that each project have its own budget. By providing an application and budget template, DCR could facilitate this process for all parties involved. Any altered project areas that were not awarded can be applied for in the next funding cycle.

It is recommended that co-applicants (e.g. non-profit, academic partner, or private sector technology firm) can apply with more than one unit of local government. This should not limit local governments from submitting applications with multiple co-applicants, based on project needs, nor from including project areas that cross jurisdictional boundaries (i.e. regional projects).

• Identify and clarify scoring criteria and weighting: To minimize applicant confusion and reduce the workload for DCR staff, it is highly recommended to be specific in elaborating on scoring categories, specific criteria within those categories, and percentage of weighting for the scoring categories. An example would be providing a detailed project timeline within a project readiness category. This can aid in strengthening applications while reducing DCR staff time and effort supporting the Fund application process.
• Encourage regional local government collaboration: Since flooding conditions cross jurisdictional boundaries, it is recommended to encourage regional local government collaboration for proposals submitted to the Fund. This can be accomplished through awarding scoring points to applications that leverage regional projects. These projects have the added benefit of lowering transaction costs, which can increase investment impact.
• Encourage cross-sector Commonwealth collaboration: Dollars invested by the Fund should benefit Virginia entities, whenever possible. For instance, precipitation modeling should be encouraged through government partnerships with Virginia Higher Education Institutions. An example would be to encourage a border locality, like Henry County, to collaborate with Virginia Tech for project research, as opposed to Appalachian State University (App State) – even though App State is within closer geographic proximity.
• Align the Fund projects with preexisting Virginia flood management efforts: When awarding projects, the Fund should provide consideration to projects that are part of, or will be included in, larger Commonwealth of Virginia flood management efforts such as the DHS/Commonwealth of Virginia flood sensor partnership led by CIT, in cooperation with VDEM. This can be accomplished by awarding scoring criteria points to application projects that participate in statewide efforts. This can help avoid project siloing and duplication, while uniting localized efforts. As a sister Commonwealth of Virginia entity, CIT volunteers to provide any expertise, make recommendations, encourage local governments to apply, and/or provide any other assistance to support DCR in advancing the Fund to benefit the Commonwealth of Virginia.
• Leverage the Commonwealth Data Trust:  One of the three grant categories is Statewide Data Collection. CIT is working with the Chief Data Officer and local governments to provide flood sensor data for larger statewide data collection efforts. We encourage DCR to consider a similar path for data collection and sharing. This will enhance data ownership, privacy, and security. Additionally, this will help make data sharing between localities and the state and academic institutions for research much easier, while also freeing the Fund to invest dollars in other grant categories. As a sister Commonwealth of Virginia entity, CIT volunteers to do what it can to communicate this approach and benefits with DCR and to encourage applicants to leverage the Commonwealth Data Trust. This will aid local governments and statewide sister entities, like VDEM, in performing public safety duties utilizing vital data to enhance flood preparedness.
• FOIA exemption: Does DCR have Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption status in place for the Fund? If not, it is recommended that DCR go to the Virginia General Assembly to gain the legal authority to become exempt from mandatory disclosure provisions of the Virginia FOIA related to a grant application that would reveal trade secrets, sensitive financial information of a grant applicant that is not a local government, research-related information produced or collected by an applicant, and information that will negatively impact the competitive position of an applicant.
• Align with Federal funding: The Fund application deadlines should be set to align with other funding sources – especially federal grants. Additionally, utilize national criteria, such as Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Risk Index (NRI) - or a similar federal emergency standard - to align with larger Federal grant opportunities that create the greatest return on investment for Commonwealth dollars by leveraging external funding.
• Applicant match: Consider a cap (e.g. 80%) for total project amount paid by the Fund. Project applicants can be rewarded through application scoring points to encourage funding a greater percentage of the project on their own, thereby using the Fund as a supplement, not an exclusive project revenue source. Require ALL applicants to have cash and/or in-kind funding to supplement the rest. In-kind funding assists localities that have difficulty funding such projects monetarily. Examples of in-kind funding can be staff time dedicated to the permitting process, or performing site surveys. Other topics to consider: can other grant sources be used as a match for the Fund? Can the Fund be used for a match for other grant sources?
• Commonwealth of Virginia education and outreach: It is recommended that the Fund require local government outreach and education projects be tied into a larger Commonwealth of Virginia branded effort for consistency, quality control, and brand recognition, with applicant adaptation based on local circumstances. This will likely have a fiscal impact for DCR, other state entities, and/or local governments.
• Support local expertise acquisition: It is noteworthy that localities often experience one or more of the following issues, which leads some to have problems moving from planning to action: resource constraints, personnel limitations, and/or insufficient expertise. Current draft guidelines allow for the Fund to be used for “technical staff training.” This use could be expanded also allow applicants to augment expertise needs by using the Fund to hire personnel and/or supplement technical staff costs, whether contracted, or local government employees. These funds are designed to supplement temporary, project based, staffing costs - not pay for recurring long-term staffing salaries.
• Discourage repeated flood management studies by localities: As an application requirement, please request that applicants list all preexisting flood management studies within X number of years (perhaps the last 5 years), to prevent funding numerous flood preparedness and resilience plans within the same locality – whether individual or in a regional effort. Multiple studies - and/or updates to study data - is a consequence of localities needing expertise support to act on sound plans; funding such studies can be an inefficient use of the Fund.
• Minimum Project Value can be abused: A study may come in under the proposed guideline of $25K for a smaller community. To get funded, that study scope may be expanded, or augmented, to meet the proposed minimum project value requirement - but the project may now be less cost effective. There are two potential solutions: 1) Encourage more regional efforts, or 2) set aside up to a specific percentage of the annual funds specifically for smaller projects. Encouraging regional efforts enhances economy of scale. Whereas, a small project set aside is beneficial to close “doughnut holes” in flood resiliency efforts targeting isolated flood prone areas that may not be cost effective. This is more likely to be seen in areas with rivers further inland, and can be used to benefit local governments further west, away from the Atlantic coast.
• Institute a separate panel of experts to make funding recommendations: It is highly recommended that an independent panel of experts is established to make funding recommendations to DCR. This minimizes issues associated with a conflict of interest. It is unfair to expect the Department of Conservation and Recreation to help make the rules, enforce them, handle potential appeals, and make funding decisions. Things to consider: determine how that group of experts scores each application. For instance, they can 1) meet as a group and make scoring decisions together, 2) have each member judge individually and the median (or mean) score can be used for scoring each application, or 3) do both – score individually, then meet to discuss the scoring as a group. The group method encourages broad and deep discussion that incorporates multiple viewpoints. The individual method removes “peer pressure” generated by one or more panel experts that could influence the scoring process. The combination leverages strengths from both perspectives.
• Challenge process: Is a challenge process needed? If so, what challenge criteria will be required of challengers, what will the challenge rebuttal entail (by the original applicant and DCR), and how long will the challenge process window be open?
• Implementation deadline: How long do applicants have to complete the funded project? While the timeframe may vary by project type, it is recommended to “start the clock” on a specific date by which applicants must begin the project(s), following award announcement. There should also be a process that allows for implementation deadline extensions due to unforeseen circumstances.
• Project outcomes: As part of the application process, it is essential to include a section on the applicant’s projected outcomes. When applicants complete this section, what are their project expectations? When do they expect to see project milestones (short, mid, and long-term)? This provides DCR staff and the review panel the flexibility to ask for more information, with the goal of removing barriers, rather than adding to them.
• Post award evaluation report: It is vital to ensure that Commonwealth dollars invested by the Fund are effectively utilized. Did the Commonwealth get what it paid for through the Fund? It is recommended to build into the final contract that awardees perform award verification follow-up reports annually for a span of years to be determined by DCR. The reporting span could be determined by project type and scope. If anything went wrong, DCR can verify and learn from these reports to minimize the likelihood that a similar project failure happens again for future Fund awards. Additionally, DCR can use success stories for publicity that benefits the awardees, DCR, and the Fund. Clarifying expectations versus results benefits all parties involved.

In closing, thank for you the opportunity to provide public comment to establish guidelines for implementation of the Community Flood Preparedness Fund. The DCR is most fortunate to have such a beneficial program under its purview. Please know that as a sister state entity, CIT wants to see DCR and this Fund succeed. CIT is willing to do what it can to assist you with the process and/or the Fund now and in the future.

Sincerely,

Chuck Kirby, Vice President of Smart Communities

Center for Innovative Technology

2214 Rock Hill Road, Suite 600

Herndon, Virginia 20170

We reside at River Towers, in the Belle Haven/Belle View/New Alexandria area of Fairfax County, which has experienced flooding from the Potomac Rive/Dyke Marsh and from storm-water runoff from adjacent areas.  We anticipate making use of the Flood Preparedness Fund when it becomes available, to increase our resilience in the face of increased flooding threats due to climate change and disturbed weather patterns.

We have reviewed the draft Guidelines, and offer the following comments:

• We commend the emphasis on nature-based solutions.
• We believe the 25% floor for funds to be set aside for low-income communities is too low, and would like to see it raised to at least 30% (ideally 33%, one-third).  Climate justice is long overdue.  Perhaps some funding could be allocated for reaching out to and guiding low-income communities in making use of this opportunity.
• Every day brings new and more alarming understanding of how climate change is affecting our waterways.  Can the first item under Planning Principles be made more explicit to include flexibility to not just follow the best available current science, but to update the guidelines of the fund as experience changes the science?

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide feedback on these important guidelines.

Sincerely,

Deborah Hammer, Barbara Bacon, and Michael Sieracki

6631 Wakefield Drive

Alexandria, VA 22307

Lisa McGee

DCR Policy and Planning Director

600 East Main Street, 24th Floor

Richmond, 23219

Dear Ms. McGee:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on DCR’s Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft Guidelines.  It would be difficult to overstate the importance of this program, given the effects of climate change that Virginia is experiencing and will experience in the future, and the significant revenues that will be available as a result of the Commonwealth joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. 

As the largest global conservation organization, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) considers climate change and coastal resilience and adaptation to be one of the world’s most urgent challenges and immediate risks to communities, economies and to our mission.  Our long-term commitment to conservation and community collaboration and partnerships at the Virginia Coast Reserve (VCR) embodies our global commitment to climate change at a local level, where impacts of sea level rise and coastal flooding are not only threatening the land and seascape but the culture and economy of the Eastern Shore of Virginia.  Our efforts to advance specific nature-based solutions to address coastal flooding extend to Virginia Beach where we are partnering with others to implement adaptation strategies identified in the City’s recently completed coastal resilience report. 

TNC very much wants to assist the Commonwealth with building an effective Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF) program, one that can serve as a model for other states.

This letter focuses on a number of specific issues raised in the Draft Guidelines.  While we would not object if DCR chose to revise the Guidelines to address these topics, we believe they can all be effectively addressed in the subsequent steps of program development identified in the Guidelines: “annual requests for proposals (RFPs), a grant manual, and scoring criteria for grant and loan applications.”  Our comments will focus on the grant manual because we think that is where most of these topics are likely be addressed, but we recognize that they could be also addressed in other related documents. 

We also recognize that the enabling legislation for this program contemplates that the program could include both loans as grants.  We believe that the grants should be the focus of the program for at least the first year or two.  Localities should be given time and assistance to establish robust programs before considering how to establish funding mechanisms that would allow them to repay loans from the state.

Prioritizing Local Resilience Plans

We concur with the Guidelines’ emphasis on the need for local resilience plans.  The first round of grant funding should focus on ensuring that all localities that do not currently have sufficient plans are able to develop such plans. Otherwise, localities, especially rural ones, that are not able to develop plans will be ineligible for implementation grants in subsequent rounds.  It is also very important for the grant manual to clearly state what constitutes an adequate plan for grant eligibility. It is our opinion that adequate plan considerations should depend on the population and geographic size and planning capacity of the locality or PDC.  For localities that will not be able to complete a robust plan otherwise, there should be a possibility of waiving match requirements for planning grants.

Smaller localities such as the towns on Virginia’s Eastern Shore must not be left out.  Counties and PDCs that submit plans should be required to include towns in their proposals if those towns do not have and are not developing their own plans.

Prioritizing Low-Income, High-Risk areas

There is a set-aside in law ensuring that low-income areas receive at least some CFPF funds, but we feel this this is not enough.  Low-income, high-risk areas must be the top priority for grants.  To address this, DCR should provide a clear definition of what constitutes low-income and high-risk areas, as well as provide a map of such areas in the grant manual.  The definition of risk should not disadvantage rural towns and villages due to small population size.  We suggest using tools created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Georgetown Climate Center to ensure consideration of social vulnerability in the definition and subsequent map of these low-income, high-risk areas in Virginia.  To be useful, these maps should be created at a finer scale than counties.  In addition, match requirements should be reduced or eliminated for projects in those areas identified as low-income and high-risk.

Role of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)

We recognize that the law currently provides that only government entities can receive grants.  As an NGO, we intend to assist localities and PDCs with grant proposals. However, it should be noted that for some localities, working with an NGO that has experience administering such grants would be beneficial.  For over a decade, TNC, in partnership with the ANPDC, has led the Virginia Eastern Shore Climate Adaptation Working Group (CAWG) and collaborated with state, federal and local entities on resilience and adaptation grants and projects.  TNC plays an integral, leadership role in this collaboration that includes grant writing and stewardship, project implementation and community engagement.

Eligible projects

In recognition that there will be few “shovel ready” projects ready for funding at this stage, the grant guidance should clearly state that all phases of projects including plan development, permitting,

research and data gathering as well as implementation and installation are eligible to apply. As a model, consider that some federal grant programs provide assistance throughout the life of a project in sequential order: an initial grant for planning, a second grant for design, and a third grant for installation.  Given the complexity of projects and permitting requirements, it is also essential that grant periods are long enough to accommodate all that must be accomplished in a particular stage.

Land conservation is recognized as a cornerstone nature-based strategy throughout The Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Planning Framework.  The CFPF program should catalyze increased participation in land protection efforts among state, locality and NGO partners.  Use of program funds to

increase capacity of land trusts in VA’s coastal region, for example, could greatly accelerate the pace and scale of land protection in critical areas.  Moreover, the land trust community’s access to additional sources of private and public capital can help leverage state CFPF grant money.  Directing CFPF money to the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation grant program and establishing a new VLCF funding category (Flood Preparedness) should be considered.   Providing block grants to Planning District Commissions to guide local land conservation activities may also have merit.

Process Going Forward

As stated above, we are concerned that localities have very different levels of readiness to take advantage of this program.  We believe it is important for DCR to engage in a robust outreach and education program, from the start, to ensure that localities are both aware of the program and are provided assistance in applying for grants.  We recommend committing to this effort throughout the entire life of this program by creating a DCR position dedicated solely to outreach and education.  

We recognize that revenues will soon become available and the need to begin planning and implementing resilience projects is urgent.  We also recognize establishing a brand-new program is challenging.  While we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Guidelines, we agree with others who have raised concerns about the lack of specificity in the document.  Therefore, we strongly urge DCR to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on a draft grant manual, so that the agency can fully benefit from the contributions of the many stakeholders who wish to make this program a success.    

Summary

In summary, we recommend:

• Focusing initial CFPF program development on grants rather than loans.
• Prioritizing local plan development in the initial grant round.
• Prioritizing projects that serve high-risk, low-income areas.
• Considering how NGOs can contribute to project development and implementation.
• Ensuring project eligibility for all phases of project development and implementation.
• Considering how to best catalyze increased participation in land conservation as a nature-based solution.
• Providing outreach and assistance to localities and PDCS so that they are able to submit effective grant proposals.
• Providing an opportunity for public comment on a draft grant manual.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Guidelines. 

Sincerely,

Nikki Rovner

Virginia Associate State Director

nrovner@tnc.org

January 29, 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,

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) pertaining to the draft guidelines for the Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF). As the Commonwealth moves to address coastal flooding as a result of sea level rise it is essential that we maximize co-benefits with Bay restoration efforts.

In a joint letter with conservation partners on January 27^th, we shared our thoughts about the difficulty in providing detailed comments given the high-level nature of the draft guidelines. We would reiterate our request that the grant manual for the CFPF be open to public comment. Additionally, we would ask that the Administration convene a stakeholder group to aid in the development of the grant manual. This is a new fund, tasked with a tremendous objective and, as such, would benefit from a collaborative, open conversation with stakeholders and staff.

While we look forward to a more robust conversation on the grant manual, the draft guidelines should still include firm guardrails for the grant manual. Below are our suggestions to help ensure water quality and equity considerations are best safeguarded in the CFPF.

Integrating Water Quality Considerations

The enacting legislation specifies a preference for projects that use “nature-based solutions.” The code 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.” This language states that solutions, “may” provide water quality benefits but given finite resources and the significant opportunities for co-beneficial projects we would recommend the CFPF guidance and grant manual take a more proactive approach.

As the waters continue to rise there is a growing potential for water quality impacts but also the potential for synergistic solutions. Site specific considerations will shape solutions, but the grant fund can provide guardrails to maximize co-benefits.

We understand and appreciate that potential resilience projects will still need to obtain the necessary permits and accordingly will meet existing environmental standards. The permitting process provides a safety net and accountability, but we would hope that the grant manual be drafted to incentivize projects that have the added benefit of helping Virginia meet its objectives for Bay restoration.

We would request that the CFPF guidance and grant manual be developed with a twofold approach to water quality considerations. First, that applicants be awarded points on their application for projects that also have beneficial impacts for the waters of the Commonwealth. Second, that projects that have potential for sediment or nutrient run off only be considered if the reviewing body determines no other effective strategies are available. We understand this is a high bar but given the enormity of the issue, volume of communities impacted, and increasing demand for immediate remedy it is essential that the fund guidelines  have strong water quality protections built in from the beginning.

Virginia’s coastal resiliency work is truly a pioneering effort, and, for that reason, the grant manual will have a measurable impact on the development of new resilience best practices and technologies. We acknowledge that there will be instances when unique circumstances will not make it possible to achieve resilience and water quality goals concurrently, but those situations should be the exception to the rule.  

To help maximize co-benefits, we would also recommend that the Department of Environmental Quality be consulted as a part of the project selection process.  

Guaranteed funding for “low-income communities”

The guaranteed funding for low income communities is an essential equity component of the CFPF and as such should have detailed guidance for its use and be carefully protected from unintended uses.

Studies of statewide and regional significance are a necessary use of the fund that will help ensure the Commonwealth is positioned to make the best decisions moving forward.  However, when these studies are funded it is not clear how this will impact the guaranteed funding for low income communities. The guidance document should make clear that funding for statewide or regional studies may not come from the 25% for low income communities. These areas have limited financial capabilities and resources should be prioritized for on the ground practices and local planning.  

The draft guidance language states, “No less than 25 percent of the moneys disbursed from the Fund each year shall be used for or set aside for projects in low-income geographic areas.” We are happy to see that the language seems to consider that communities may need sustained funding over multiple grant rounds in order to complete a project. Currently, the draft guidelines include two grant rounds per year. Would a low-income locality be able to apply in a grant round and then receive a percentage of future grant rounds until the project is funded? If this is a tool the agency would like to have, the draft guidelines should make clear that DCR has the authority to set aside a portion of future grant rounds in order to meet obligations to previously approved projects.

Outreach to low income communities

In addition to guaranteeing that funding for low income communities is protected in the guidance it is equally important that DCR has a clear outreach protocol for low income communities. Ensuring low income communities are aware of and prepared to request these funds is a unique challenge. Similar to  the ongoing conversation around best practices for environmental justice outreach, a unique communications effort is needed in advance of grant rounds to ensure the spirit of the legislation is met.  A process for meaningful engagement is essential for accountability and best outcomes.

Speaking directly with low-income communities about their needs is the best way to inform the guidance and ensure they are engaged in the grant rounds. To that end, the guidance should include a commitment from DCR to hold at least one pre-grant round meeting with communities that meet the statutory definition.

Soil and Water Conservation Districts and Non-profit Organizations

Given the significant acreage of agricultural land along Virginia’s coasts and the relationships Soil and Water Conservation districts have with Virginia farmers we understand considering them for inclusion as eligible entities. However, coastal resiliency is outside of the primary purview of our districts and assistance would be needed. If Soil and Water Districts are to be included as eligible entities, then DCR should identify funding to develop a resiliency training program for district staff to develop the technical expertise necessary. In the absence of such funding, we would suggest instead that Soil and Water Districts instead be listed as potential partners for localities and Planning District commissions rather than primary recipients of funding.

Thank you again for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the draft guidelines for the Community Flood Preparedness Fund. We look forward to continuing this important conversation in the months to come. Please feel free to reach out anytime with any questions you might have. 

Regards,

Jay C. Ford

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.

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

ELIGIBLE PLANS, PROJECTS, AND STUDIES

Planning Grants

We strongly support the provisions in the Draft Guidelines allowing planning grants to include “plan[ning] and implement[ing] an education and outreach strategy for communities that have been traditionally underserved or particularly vulnerable,” but can a planning grant include funding a “circuit rider” to both develop and implement this education and outreach strategy? This circuit rider would meet with localities and provide direct assistance, filling a role similar to Virginia cooperative extension. Many communities across the state are not aware of the Fund’s existence. Notifying local and regional staff that resources are available will be a critical first step to ensure equitable distribution of the Fund. Reaching and involving the residents of “low income geographic areas” presents a unique challenge given the state’s existing limited staff capacity to complete outreach to areas unburdened by technological and other limitations present in areas of low income. 

We appreciate the Draft Guidelines’ inclusion of staff training in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and costs associated with obtaining a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) certification. Wetlands Watch’s training and outreach experience in both rural and small communities revealed a scarcity of CFM staff throughout the state, despite the high percentage of communities participating in the NFIP. Strict compliance with the NFIP is paramount for all Virginia communities. 


Project Grants

The Fund governance documents need to determine eligibility of and additional conditions on projects on private property. In Virginia’s coastal zone, the majority of our shorelines are in private ownership. This presents a challenge for flood protection and resiliency if the Fund is restricted only to public lands. During outreach efforts, numerous stakeholders raised the issue of eligibility of Fund moneys for projects on private property. If private property is eligible for projects, Fund governance documents must develop policies and procedures to ensure transparency as state administered funds will benefit private landowners. This may require Fund governance documents to consider protective measures, in addition to the 25% allocation to low-income geographic areas, to safeguard the equitable distribution of state resources.

Stakeholders emphasized that eligible projects should not be limited to “shovel-ready projects,” but should include the development of final designs, engineering analysis, and permitting. Many stakeholders questioned whether the project timeline will allow for delays due to final design and regulatory approval. The cost and time commitment associated with getting to the shovel-ready phrase are significant. 

These issues of time restrictions on grants must be addressed in the Fund governance documents. During stakeholder outreach, there were questions about time limits on the expenditure of funds (e.g., “all funds have to be expended within 36 months”) or the start of the project (e.g., “all projects have to be shovel ready within 6 months of award”). If these conditions are applied, they must be clearly outlined in the Fund governance documents. 

A related issue that needs to be addressed is what to do with unexpended project funding. The Fund governance documents need to detail whether unexpended funds can be rolled over to another project if costs are under estimates, or if the money must be returned to the Fund.

The statute requires that “localities shall use moneys from the fund...in areas that are subject to recurrent flooding as confirmed by a locality-certified floodplain manager.” Regarding the first part of this statutory language, the Draft Guidelines do not set a standard for “recurrent flooding” and the Fund governance documents should define and set that standard. The standard must also cover both coastal tidal flooding and riverine flooding, which operate differently. Periodic riverine flooding may occur less frequently than “recurrently,” but needs to be covered by the programs of the Fund. With the statewide focus of the Fund, these riverine flooding issues need inclusion in the definition of “recurrent flooding.”

The second part of the above referenced statutory language requires that “a locality-certified floodplain manager” confirm the recurrent flooding areas. Many submitted comments raise the issue of whether the “locality-certified” designation equates to a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM), as confirmed by the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM). The Fund governance documents must clarify the intent behind this designation.

There is also a need to include local officials other than floodplain managers since the involvement of other departments and staff expertise may be equally important. The best plans and planning approaches come from localities that collaborate across departments. The designation of recurrent flooding areas may need approval from multiple departments or elected officials, which could require a longer administrative process for communities.

The statute states that “moneys in the Fund may be used to mitigate future flood damage.” Fund governance documents should mandate that future flood risk be considered in these projects, and in the locality flood resilience plan, to drive adoption of planning standards to anticipate future conditions. However, this raises a number of issues, regarding what standards will be used for future conditions and what methodologies should be used for the future conditions analysis. Final Fund governance documents must decide if project applications will require the consideration of the full suite of impacts - sea level rise, increased rainfall, salinity, and temperature. 

Requiring the inclusion of future flood conditions will disproportionately affect smaller, resource constrained, rural communities that do not have funding or capacity to develop those projections. Riverine communities will be further behind than coastal communities because riverine flood models do not include increased rainfall intensity, due to the lack of state standardized estimate. If the Fund governance documents require the consideration of future conditions in Fund project applications, the state must develop state-approved standards and analytical methods, on a regional/local scale, that can be included in project grant applications to the Fund.

The use of project funds as a match for foundation and federal projects should be allowed.  Fund Guidance Documents need to address problems around the timing of awards from the Fund and synchronization with project partners’ foundation grant cycles and federal appropriations. Can awards from the Fund be held in escrow until project partner approval and funding is available? Are awards from the Fund contingent upon project partner funding approval and returned to the Fund if that partner funding fails to materialize? 


Studies and Data Collection of Statewide and Regional Significance

The statute authorizes the Fund to offer “loans and grants that support flood prevention or protection studies of statewide or regional significance.” The Draft Guidelines indicate what types of studies would fall under this category, but they are silent on how these studies will be identified, prioritized, or funded. The Fund governance documents must detail the process by which these studies are prioritized and awarded to provide transparency about Fund operations and build trust in the administration of the Fund. There must be a separate process with clear prioritization for these studies and for other state expenditures of the Fund moneys, such as financing staff positions at DCR and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) with the administrative overhead funding allowed in statute and through memorandums of agreement. Details on these expenditures should be reported annually, accompanied by a work plan for the subsequent year.

These statewide and regional studies are essential to reduce flood risk in the Commonwealth, as many local plans and projects cannot proceed without the information contained in state-wide and regional studies. We recommend the state release a list of state-wide priorities and initiatives so local government staff can provide input on what information is missing and delaying their own planning and project implementation. The list of priorities in the Coastal Master Planning Framework is a good start, but does not reach non-coastal areas and may not even constitute a thorough list for the coastal region. It would be helpful if DCR created a checklist, based on existing needs, to establish these state-wide and regional priorities.

APPLICATION & SELECTION

Application Process

The application process must be developed and sufficient time allowed for the first issuance of the Grant Manual for stakeholder comment. The timing of the grant/loan application period is outlined in the Draft Guidelines: “[t]he Round 1 application window will run from April 1-June 1, with August grant awards. Round 2 will run from August 1-December 1 with December grant awards.” For the first round of funding this time period may need adjustment, since it is doubtful that sufficient time exists between the closing of comments on these Draft Guidelines and April 1 to develop and issue a Grant Manual, allow public review and comment, publish a final Grant Manual, and allow localities sufficient time to prepare applications to the Fund.

Stakeholder outreach work highlighted the need to provide sufficient advance notice of a grant application period or request for proposals (RFP) and to provide sufficient time after the grant application period/RFP is announced for localities to assemble proposals. During the stakeholder outreach process, localities, especially smaller/rural localities complained that due to communication limitations, they are constantly “surprised” by RFP’s from foundations and agencies and cannot turn around proposals in time. Many of the projects on a locality priority list are not “shovel ready.” As noted elsewhere, good proposals will need time to undergo local government review. Most of those projects need final engineering and design and many will undergo regulatory review, causing more delay. The application period/advance notice period must include time required for internal locality review (program, budget, and legal review). It must also allow sufficient time for city council/county board approval and legal commitment of resources.

Applications for projects in watersheds that flow from or into adjacent localities, or projects that will affect conditions in another locality (longshore drift of sand, transfer of wave energy, etc.), should have an acknowledgement from that adjacent locality that they are aware of the project and give their assent. This is especially important if, as requested elsewhere in these comments, projects are organized on a HUC-10 watershed basis.

Many localities do not have the staff resources to apply for and manage grants offered by federal agencies and foundations. The application and reporting requirements for the Fund need to recognize that fact. Many localities interviewed said they prefer to use their Planning District Commission (PDC) as the fiscal agent for the grant and the Fund governance documents need to allow this relationship. PDCs do not have the authority to conduct every project, therefore a pass through or subcontract with the localities must be permissible by the Fund.

The Fund governance documents need to determine how frequently an eligible entity can apply for a grant/loan, and if there should be a waiting period between awarded grants/loans as a mechanism for spreading Fund moneys in a fair and equitable manner. It should also be clarified whether or not an eligible entity can apply for a subsequent grant/loan before a prior awarded grant/loan project is completed. Some localities are more prepared to apply for Fund moneys than others in the initial years of the Fund, which could leave less-prepared localities behind.

All project applications must contain an operations and maintenance (O&M) plan and dedicated funding. We have observed tens of thousands of dollars in resilience projects that have failed due to a lack of O&M planning and funding. 


Match

The Draft Guidelines state that a cost share will be set as part of the Grant Manual. The Draft Guidelines indicate that there will be a sliding scale to prioritize green infrastructure and community-scale projects (meaning a lower cost-share will be required). In the Fund governance documents, definitions of “green infrastructure” and “community-scale projects” are needed to determine which projects qualify for greater local government cost share and which qualify for lower local government cost share. There should be lists of types of projects fitting those definitions to assist localities in developing applications for project funding.

The Draft Guidelines also state that applications involving studies, grants, or projects, for which there is dedicated funding (stormwater, wastewater, transportation, etc.), will “receive a lesser cost share,” although it is unclear how that process will work. A definition of what constitutes “dedicated funding” and/or at least the sources of funding that are defined as “dedicated” must be included in Fund governance documents. 

For the low-income geographic areas set aside, the Draft Guidelines state, “[t]he grant awards, in particular, should consider the fiscal capacity of the applying localities and look to fund full project costs where necessary and examine the feasibility of using a sliding scale, based on fiscal health metrics, to determine the final amount of a grant award.” The Fund governance documents must outline how they will evaluate an eligible entity's fiscal capabilities, and what metrics will be used to give less fiscally capable entities a higher cost share. 

The Fund governance documents need to determine if project O&M costs can be used as a local match on a project. This is especially important for projects employing nature based solutions. In our experience the continued maintenance of these approaches is critical to their performance.


Low Income Geographic Areas

The statute and the Draft Guidelines set aside 25% of the annual Fund disbursements for projects in “low-income geographic areas,” defined in the statute as, “any locality, or community within a locality, that has a median household income that is not greater than 80 percent of the local median household income, or any area in the Commonwealth designated as a qualified opportunity zone by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury via his delegation of authority to the Internal Revenue Service.” We support the flexibility provided with the use of “or” in designating these areas because it allows a locality to choose the most relevant locations. Many opportunity zones are in areas that are built out and have fewer/more expensive resilience options, certainly not as many nature-based solution options, so the ability to use an income standard allows flexibility.

The Fund governance documents should clearly delineate the eligibility criteria for this “low-income geographic area” set aside. Is it enough that a project protects an area, but only includes one census tract or neighborhood that is a “low-income geographic area?” Is there a minimum area protected/served by a project that would make the project eligible for this “low-income geographic area” set aside? Without clarity in the Fund governance documents, there is potential for inappropriate use/abuse of this set aside.

The statute states that the 25% set-aside will be calculated as a percentage of the total annual Fund disbursements. Does this total include projects of “state-wide or regional significance?” For example, if the state spends one million dollars on a statewide stream gauge system, or a modeling contract, does this mean that $250,000 (25% of that disbursement) is reserved out of the remaining Fund moneys to be spent in “low-income geographic areas?”

In the stakeholder conversations, the Secretary of Natural Resource’s office said that any unexpended portion of the low income geographic area set aside would be reserved for the subsequent year. In order to implement this provision, the Fund governance documents must define the Fund’s annual operating period (what constitutes a “year” for the Fund?), provide clarity on this carry-over procedure and requirement, and state in an annual report the amount of the carry-over. 

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

January 31, 2021

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

RE: Draft Community Flood Preparedness Fund Guidelines

Ms. McGee,

The staff of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) draft guidelines for the Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF). The HRPDC supports the establishment of dedicated state funding for local and regional resilience efforts. Hampton Roads is one of the most vulnerable areas in the Commonwealth to the near-term and long-term effects of flooding and sea level rise. As a result, the HRPDC and its seventeen member jurisdictions have invested significant time and resources in considering various ways to build more resilient communities, including through the identification and implementation of specific projects and studies. Based on that experience, the HRPDC staff offers the following comments on the draft guidelines.

Engage Stakeholders

The draft guidelines state that additional details will be included in forthcoming grant manuals. As a result, the draft guidelines provide too little information on the CFPF program for stakeholders to offer detailed feedback. The draft guidelines would benefit from more clarity on program priorities, terminology, proposed criteria, project eligibility, funding levels, cost share requirements, and the process for selecting proposals, which are all critical aspects of how the program will be implemented. The HRPDC staff recommends that DCR establish a stakeholder working group to help identify criteria and develop the scoring mechanism for prioritizing projects. Local governments have significant experience with existing state and federal grant programs and can provide valuable insight into the practicality of different scoring metrics and the efforts need to put together successful applications. Establishing a stakeholder workgroup to help draft the grant manual would help to avoid some of the obstacles and challenges experienced with similar programs. This workgroup should include at minimum representatives from cities, counties, towns, planning district commissions, soil and water conservation districts, and tribal governments from across the Commonwealth. In addition, we recommend that DCR provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment on the first grant manual for a comment period of at least sixty days. This will help to ensure that the program is established in such a way that Virginia’s local and tribal governments are best able to equitably benefit. 

Adopt a Flexible Definition for Local Resilience Plans

The draft guidelines state that grant awards “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.” The HRPDC staff supports connecting state funding with local planning processes. There is a wide range of previous investment in resilience efforts by different communities across the Commonwealth due to various factors, including differences in capacity and in the relative importance that some communities place on these issues. However, the HRPDC staff supports requiring prior planning to be eligible for project funding. Most if not all communities already have a comprehensive plan, hazard mitigation plan, or other officially adopted plan. Instead of requiring a specific resilience plan, the HRPDC staff recommends that DCR provide a list of required elements that a locality’s or region’s plan should include to qualify as a resilience plan. Documentation of how the plan meets those minimum standards should be required in the application. In addition, DCR should specifically include applicable regional plans, such as hazard mitigation plans or other resilience-related plans, in any list of acceptable plans. 

Leverage Related Funding Opportunities

Although annual, dedicated funding for flood risk mitigation is typically not available, there are examples of state and federal programs that fund similar projects to the CFPF. Many of these are funded on a competitive or limited basis. For example, funding from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program has the potential to help localities in Virginia conduct significant resilience planning and implementation efforts, but it requires congressional authorization. The HRPDC staff recommends that DCR consider setting aside funds to provide larger amounts of funding for major projects. The CFPF should allow for combining with other state programs (for example, SLAF), and include a component to assist localities with non-federal match requirements for federal grants from FEMA, NOAA, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Establish an Adaptive and Transparent Process

The HRPDC staff recognizes that the implementation of the CFPF will change over time as lessons are learned during implementation and new policies, including the forthcoming Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan, are put into place. We recommend that DCR commit to annual updates of the grant program guidance and manual. The HRPDC staff also recognizes that this program is likely to be highly competitive with many applicants from across the Commonwealth. DCR should work with a stakeholder workgroup to clarify the process for selecting projects for funding. In addition, DCR should release the scores of all applications after each selection round and offer opportunities for applicants to receive feedback on their proposals. This would help ensure transparency in how funds are awarded and should improve the quality of applications over time.

We appreciate DCR’s efforts to incorporate stakeholder feedback through this public comment process and look forward to working with DCR on the successful implementation of this program.

Sincerely,

Benjamin J. McFarlane

Senior Regional Planner

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:

The Virginia Floodplain Management Association (VFMA) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) draft guidelines for implementation of the Community Flood Preparedness Fund (Fund). VFMA is a non-profit dedicated to expanding the application of proactive floodplain management across the Commonwealth, representing floodplain management professionals from local governments, state and federal agencies, private firms, and non-profits.

Please accept our comments below on the Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft Guidelines (Draft Guidelines). In a joint letter with partners submitted on January 27, 2021, VFMA shared comments on the Community Flood Preparedness Fund Draft Guidelines (Draft Guidelines). Many of those partners have submitted individual comments, which we also support.

VFMA appreciates the significant efforts made by the Northam Administration to address the Commonwealth’s resilience to flooding and climate change. Flooding is a statewide issue, and VFMA applauds the Northam Administration and the General Assembly for creating a fund that will provide greatly needed resources to all Virginia communities.

Stakeholder Engagement

First, we believe that extensive stakeholder engagement is necessary to not only establish this new program, but to ensure it continues as a stable resource for localities to increase their resilience to flooding. While some stakeholder engagement occurred, including an event hosted by VFMA with Deputy Secretary of Natural Resource Joshua Saks, the lack of detail included in the Draft Guidelines has made it difficult for our members and other stakeholders to provide substantive feedback.

As such, we respectfully request that DCR revise the Draft Guidelines to address the issues raised during this public comment period and release the revised Draft Guidelines for additional public review and public comment. We request that DCR conduct extensive outreach to stakeholders related to the revised Draft Guidelines, both before and during the public comment period.  

VFMA recognizes that many of the details missing from the Draft Guidelines, such as application requirements and scoring criteria, will be addressed in the forthcoming Grant Manual. During multiple outreach events, confirmation was not provided that the Grant Manual would be made available for public comment. We request that DCR publicly commit to a public comment period for the forthcoming Grant Manual. Furthermore, we request that this public comment period last at least 60 days and that DCR conduct extensive outreach to stakeholders related to the Grant Manual, both before and during the public comment period.

Additionally, we request that DCR establish a workgroup to help develop the Grant Manual. At a minimum, this workgroup should represent local governments and Planning District Commissions (PDC) from across the state to ensure that the different flood-related and socioeconomic challenges faced by all communities are considered. However, technical experts from non-governmental organizations, higher education institutions, and other entities should also be represented on this workgroup.

Commonwealth Resilience Planning Principles

VFMA supports the guiding principles of the Virginia Coastal Master Planning Framework (Framework) and agree that in general, these principles can be applied statewide to help prioritize projects for the Fund. However, the Draft Guidelines apply statewide, and using the exact language from the Framework is confusing because some of the guiding principles use coastal-specific language. We recommend rephrasing the Framework’s guiding principles to be representative of the entire state when including them in the Draft Guidelines. For example, the second guiding principle could be modified to replace “coastal” with “flood”, so it reads: “Identify and address socioeconomic inequities and work to enhance equity through coastal flood adaptation and protection efforts.” This does not change the applicability in a coastal context, but it does clarify that this guiding principle applies statewide.

Program Goal for the Fund

The Draft Guidelines outline the goal of the Fund and state the fund will prioritize projects that align with “local, state, and federal floodplain management standards, local resilience plans and the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan.” We recommend rephrasing this statement to clarify that the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan applies to projects in coastal communities only. This could be done by adding a new sentence, such as “In coastal localities, projects in concert with the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan will also be prioritized.”

Will there be additional consideration for projects not in coastal communities? The Flood Protection Plan for the Commonwealth could be an opportunity for this. We do not recommend referencing the Flood Protection Plan in its current form, as it does not identify clear, statewide priorities for addressing flood risk. However, DCR is required to update this plan,[1] and the updated version could serve this purpose. We recommend that DCR conduct extensive stakeholder engagement as part of their update to the Flood Protection Plan, as well as a public comment period.

Priority Elements of the Fund

Project Grants

The Draft Guidelines state that grants and loans will be provided for projects that are “in accordance with local and regional resilience plans, statewide guidance on freeboard standards and sea level rise projections pursuant to Executive Order 24 (2018), or the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan.” The use of “or” here suggests that projects need only align with one of these plans and standards. However, in the Program Goal section, “and” is used. Furthermore, in the Planning Grants section states “a completed [flood resilience] plan will be required before a locality can apply for and receive funding from the Project category.”

Is a local resilience plan required? Are projects that are not included in a local resilience plan eligible? The title of this section suggests this will only be used for prioritizing projects and not necessarily all projects that are eligible for the Fund, but this language needs to be clarified. Are local resilience plans required for Planning or Study activities, or just Projects?  Localities need to know what projects are eligible and what is required to receive funding.

Planning Grants

VFMA supports encouraging localities to comprehensively plan for flood preparedness and resilience, and we believe these types of activities should be prioritized.  However, it is unclear what constitutes a local flood resilience plan. The Draft Guidelines mention plans being required to meet “minimum criteria” that will be detailed in the first Grant Manual. However, if a local flood resilience plan is required for project eligibility, localities need to be aware of the minimum criteria before the first Grant Manual is released.

Most localities do not currently have a local flood resilience plan, so having specific guidelines and examples of what constitutes a good plan would be helpful. Additionally, most communities have several different planning documents that address a variety of issues. While flooding may be addressed in those, they are not necessarily focused on comprehensive flood preparedness and resilience. However, the content of those plans may be valuable.

We recommend that the local flood resilience plans take an integrative planning approach, connecting a community’s existing plans and expanding upon them through a flood resiliency lens. This plan should include topics such as floodplain management, hazard mitigation, stormwater management, water quality, historic preservation, community and economic development, social vulnerability and inequity, etc. By creating an integrative planning process, multiple departments and organizations on the local level will need to coordinate, helping ensure that all factors that impact, as well as those impacted by, flooding are incorporated. Additionally, coordination with neighboring communities should be part of this planning process as flooding is a watershed issue. This coordination will allow for communities to better understand the development pressures and flooding issues faced by their neighbors and may lead to collaboration on future projects.

The American Planning Association’s Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Memo Building Resilience Through Plan Integration (January/February 2021)[2] may be a resource to help DCR establish guidelines and localities to develop their plans. Additionally, FEMA Region 3 and EPA Region 3 recently worked on a plan integration workshop, with a focus on green infrastructure, in Virginia and neighboring states, that could also serve as a resource.

This plan should be required to include a section on low-income geographic areas. Statue requires that “[n]o less than 25 percent of the moneys disbursed from the Fund each year shall be used for, or set aside for projects in low-income geographic areas.” Requiring localities to address these areas in their local flood resilience plan, including identifying potential projects and conducting community outreach, will help ensure these areas are not left behind in the planning and project implementation process.

Stakeholder engagement requirements should be established for the local flood resilience plan. Utilizing FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) program’s Floodplain Management Planning[3] requirements could be option for this. By meeting these requirements, localities could be eligible for points through the CRS program, which could result in flood insurance premium discounts for citizens in high-risk flood zones. This would also support recommendations in DCR’s Response to Executive Order 24 (2019).[4]

Grants Applicability

Eligible Project Activities

VFMA supports the types of activities that are listed in the Draft Guidelines, but additional information is needed to better understand what activities will be funded. For example, acquisition of flood-prone properties will be prioritized for funding according to the Draft Guidelines, but what does this include? How is flood-prone defined? Will there be restrictions on the acquired property, such as ownership, use, maintenance, etc.? Will acquisition funding be limited to market value? These details need to be fleshed out in the Draft Guidelines and Grant Manual. VFMA recommends that DCR create a workgroup of technical experts that are familiar with other acquisition programs to help establish these requirements.

This Fund should be flexible to provide localities with an opportunity to achieve projects that may not be feasible through other state or federal programs. For example, FEMA funds can be used to acquire properties or demolish and rebuild a structure or to relocate a structure. However, there are various limitations on these programs that make it difficult for many communities to utilize them. These same activities should be funded by this Fund, but the requirements should be flexible enough that a locality can implement needed projects, either by using this Fund alone or by leveraging it with other programs.

VFMA recommends aligning project requirements with federal programs, such as FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance program[5] and Community Lifelines[6]. This will make it easier for communities to pursue federal funding as part of the match for this Fund, or if their project is not awarded funding. However, we do not recommend copying the other programs entirely.

The Draft Guidelines state that projects will be “guided by the ConserveVirginia model.” VFMA appreciates the robust data that ConserveVirginia provides. However, it is unclear if all the models including in ConserveVirginia would be utilized or just the Floodplains and Flooding Resilience model. The Floodplains and Flooding Resilience model is the most relevant model to this fund, but it does not capture all areas that experience recurrent flooding, and the other models may also be important depending on the type of project. It should be clarified which part(s) of ConserveVirginia will be considered. Conservation related projects should be supported by the ConserveVirginia model, but it is unclear how this model will be used for other types of projects. Aligning with ConserveVirginia should not be a requirement for projects, but prioritizing conservation projects that do align with the model could be addressed in the Grant Manual scoring criteria.

Eligible Planning Activities

As stated above, the requirements for a local resilience plan need to be clarified. Additionally, requiring plans to meet the guiding principles of the Framework should be clarified. As suggested above, this could be accomplished by restating the guiding principles using non-coastal specific language, so they are applicable statewide.

In the Draft Guidelines, “projections for future conditions” are identified as an eligible planning activity specific to sea level rise and coastal communities. Considering future conditions should also be an eligible activity for non-coastal communities.

VFMA recommends adding “or similar plans or ordinances” to the end of sixth bulleted item under Planning (page 5) in the Draft Guidelines. This will provide flexibility to localities to use flood-related information to support as many plans and ordinances as are applicable to them.

The seventh bulleted item (page 5) states “Revising floodplain maps (not to include regular map updates) to incorporate higher standards to reduce the risk of flood damage.” It is unclear what this means. Is “floodplain maps” intended to mean Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) created by FEMA? Assuming this is referring to FIRMs, are “regular map updates” intended to mean regular community-wide updated conducted by FEMA? What will be considered “higher standards”? Does this mean studying additional storm frequencies that FEMA does not study? Mapping a floodway based on a more restrictive threshold, such 0.5 feet instead of one foot? Some communities have their own floodplain maps beyond what FEMA creates. Would those also be eligible for funding?

This language is very concerning and needs to be addressed in the Draft Guidelines and Grant Manual. FEMA does not update community FIRMs on a regular basis, and their updates do not necessarily involve updating all the data used to create the maps. Old data is often carried over into map updates, leaving the community with a new effective date with outdated data. Additionally, communities are often mapped with approximate A Zones, the least detailed flood zone. It is imperative that localities be able to use this Fund to update FIRMs with better data than what FEMA provides, as well as to map other areas that experience flooding outside of FEMA’s project scope. The term “higher standards” should be removed. Instead, language such as improving existing data, creating new data, considering future conditions, etc. could be used. Additionally, if FIRMs can be updated using this Fund, additional requirements like submitting a Letter of Map Change through FEMA will need to be considered. This should be outlined in the Grant Manual.

VFMA strongly supports the inclusion of costs associated with staff training. Building capacity on the local level is critical to ensure that communities are properly implementing their local floodplain management programs. However, this section should be expanded upon. Will the Fund cover the cost for training to take the Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) exam, or will it also cover the cost for the exam itself? What happens if the grant recipient does not pass the exam? What about CFM maintenance? We recommend that the locality provide written agreement that the CFM designation will be maintained for a specified timeframe. There should be flexibility if the recipient does not pass the exam, as everyone reacts to tests differently. However, information should be included related to retaking the exam and who will cover those costs.  

Studies and Data Collection of Statewide and Regional Significance

In the Priority section of the Draft Guidelines, Study Grants are identified. However, in this section, studies are only captured as part of “Studies and Data Collection of Statewide and Regional Significance.” Does this mean that studies will only be funded if they of statewide or regional significance? While regional and statewide studies are important, studies on a local level are critical for localities to property plan for and address their flood risk. This needs to be clarified that local-level studies are eligible activities.

What criteria will be used to determine if a study is of statewide or regional significance? This needs to be established, so it is clear to localities what projects are eligible. Additionally, who is eligible for this type or project? Will localities be able to submit a joint, multi-jurisdictional application or will one locality be expected to take on a statewide or regional challenge? Will PDCs be eligible on their own, or will they be required to apply on behalf of one locality that is taking on this larger initiative? Will state agencies be eligible for this application type?

View a PDF of this comment letter here: https://vaflood.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/VFMA_CFPF-Comments_01.31.2020_final.pdf

(continued from comment Part 1)

Grant Award Criteria

This section mentions the use of a sliding scale for the match. Additional information is needed on this sliding scale to provide useful feedback. However, VFMA does support having a sliding scale and flexibility with match requirements. During VFMA’s outreach event with Deputy Secretary Saks, some of our members expressed the desire to allow communities to have a zero-match requirement. In-kind matches should be allowed, either to meet the entire match requirement or a portion of it.

This section of the Draft Guidelines again includes conflicting language related to whether a local resilience plan is required. This language needs to be clarified. This section also uses “local, regional or statewide significance”, but previous sections only refer to regional or statewide significance. VFMA supports allowing projects that are determined to be of local significance, but as mentioned above, criteria need to be established for how something will be considered significant.

Timing

The Draft Guidelines state there will be two grant rounds. VFMA supports having established grant rounds on a regular schedule, so localities can adequately prepare. However, we are concerned that the grant rounds identified will not allow for adequate time for DCR to review applications and make any necessary modifications to the Guidelines or Grant Manual. For example, round one is expected to end one June 1, with awards announced in August. This would give DCR roughly two months to review grant applications and approve awards. Round two is expected to begin on August 1, so if any changes are necessary after round one, there will not be time to incorporate them. Additionally, round two is expected to end on December 1, with awards announced in December, giving DCR less than one month to review grant applications and approve awards.

VFMA recommends establishing procedures for how the Guidelines and Grant Manual will be reviewed and modified. For instance, will there be one modification per year? Will that be based on the calendar year or fiscal year? When will the Grant Manual be released in relation to the application period? The grant round time periods should be revised to reflect this. VFMA recommends releasing the Grant Manual well in advance, at least 6 months, of the application period to give localities enough time to properly prepare applications and budget allocations.

Eligible Entities

The Draft Guidelines state that localities, PDCs (on behalf of localities), Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Tribal Governments are eligible for grant funding. This conflicts with statute, which states the Fund is available to any “locality”, which is not defined. However, the statute does define “local government” as “any county, city, town, municipal corporation, authority, district, commission, or political subdivision created by the General Assembly or pursuant to the Constitution of Virginia or laws of the Commonwealth.”[7] Assuming that “locality” is synonymous with “local government”, the Draft Guidelines have restricted the eligible entities for the Fund.

Additional information on tribal government eligibility is needed. For instance, does this include federally recognized tribes, state recognized tribes, recognized tribes with land use authority, etc.? Will the application requirements and administration steps be the same for tribal governments as other entities? This needs to be clarified in the Draft Guidelines and forthcoming Grant Manual. We encourage DCR to coordinate with the various state and federal tribal liaisons currently working with the tribal governments in Virginia, as well as conducting outreach with the tribal governments themselves, to ensure this program appropriately addresses their needs.

During outreach events, including VFMA’s event with Deputy Secretary Saks, it was mentioned that the Fund could be used by localities to implement projects and although PDCs are listed as an eligible entity, they would serve more as a pass-through entity to assist the locality with grant management. We believe that PDCs should be an eligible entity, on their own as well as to assist localities, for the Fund. Several activities outlined in the Draft Guidelines under Planning Grants and Study Grants can be conducted on a regional scale, which would be better suited for a PDC to manage on their own. They should not be required to coordinate through one locality as the applicant, nor should one locality have to bear the burden for a regional, multi-jurisdictional project.

During our outreach event, there were questions about whether localities can hire consultants to implement their projects. The use of contractors and sub awards should be addressed in the Draft Guidelines and Grant Manual.

Loans

The Draft Guidelines outline several activities that will be prioritized by the Fund through the grant program. However, the Fund was established as a grant and loan program, and the Draft Guidelines do not address how loans will be managed. Will the same projects that are eligible for grant funds be eligible for loans? How will the loans be managed? Who will be eligible for loans? How will loan forgiveness[8] for low-income geographic areas be managed? This must be addressed in the Draft Guidelines.

Program Administration in General

Throughout the Draft Guidelines, the terms project and activity are used. Project appears to refer to on-the-ground projects that will be implemented, which along with plans and studies would be an activity. This should be clarified in the Draft Guidelines and Grant Manual to avoid confusion.

Many localities do not have the resources necessary to properly prepare a grant application. It would be helpful for DCR to have grant administrator staff dedicated to providing technical assistance to localities to help them through the grant application process.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on DCR’s Draft Guidelines for the implementation of the Community Flood Preparedness Fund. VFMA strongly supports this new Fund, and we welcome the opportunity to answer any questions or provide additional details on any of the comments provided above.

Sincerely,

Kristin Owen, AICP, CFM

President

Virginia Floodplain Management Association