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 27th, 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