FEMA & BiOp Floodplains Propeller Club 10-24-11
-
Upload
brackett427 -
Category
Documents
-
view
31 -
download
4
description
Transcript of FEMA & BiOp Floodplains Propeller Club 10-24-11
Presented by
Ray Liaw
Changes on the Floodplain How FEMA and the BiOp are Impacting
Development in the Puget Sound
Key Floodplain Issues
• Why relevant now?
– Updated floodplain mapping
– ESA lawsuit resulted in Biological Opinion affecting implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program
• Result: At same time floodplains are getting bigger/deeper, the applicable development regulations are getting tougher.
Brief History Lesson
• Congress adopted the National Flood Insurance Act in 1968
– Insurance Mechanism
– Local floodplain management
• Map 100 year floodplain; known as FIRMs.
• Pierce County FIRMs not substantially updated since 1987.
Remapping in 2000s
Two things changed that brought about remapping:
• FEMA initiated map modernization – digital floodplain maps.
• New scrutiny regarding levees.
Result: Dramatically different floodplains
Impacts in Pierce County
• 2004: Puyallup River, lower 8-miles of levees lost certification
• 2007: Pierce County issued p-FIRMs
– Expanded floodplain: Fife, Port of Tacoma, Riverside, Orting, South Prairie
– Fife: 70% of the community in the floodplain
• Puyallup River Executive Task Force … $$$
City of Fife Floodplains
Current Status of Remapping
• All maps affected by levees currently on hold. – February Letter from Senators asking FEMA to change levee policy.
– March announcement by Craig Fugate/FEMA that FEMA will re-evaluate “without levees” policy.
***Warning: The current maps may apply.
• Pierce County p-FIRMs issued in 2007
• E.g., Pierce County, Tacoma, Fife using already
Why does being in the floodplain matter?
• New Development Restrictions Apply
– Properties in the floodplain are subject to at least one, and more often several, additional layers of restrictions
– FEMA Minimum Standards: Local governments must adopt flood hazard regulations at least as stringent to participate in the NFIP.
• Result: Much harder to develop, redevelop and/or
maintain property if it is mapped in the floodplain.
FEMA Minimum Standards
• Construction/Repair Requirements
– Flood hazard permit required
– Must elevate or flood proof all non-residential structures to at or above Base Flood Elevation
– Mandatory anchoring, construction materials
• New Construction or “Substantial Improvements”
– Repair, reconstruction, or improvement where cost exceeds 50% of pre-improvement or repair value
• Floodway Restrictions under RCW 86.16
FEMA Minimum Standards are Baseline
• Pierce County
– Broader regulatory floodway
– Zero-rise floodplain restrictions
– Compensatory storage
– Increased elevation requirements: structures must be elevated to 2-feet; roads must be elevated to 1-foot
• Tacoma: FEMA minimum standards
Floodplain hazard regulations vary by jurisdiction, but all must meet FEMA minimum standards
FEMA and the Biological Opinion
• 2004: FEMA sued by National Wildlife Foundation and ordered to consult under the ESA
• 2008: National Marine Fisheries Service issued Biological Opinion to FEMA.
– Concludes that FEMA’s implementation of the NFIP threatens endangered salmon and Orca whales.
BiOp: More Stringent Regulations in Process …
• By 9/22/2011: FEMA must compel local governments to adopt more stringent flood hazard regulations.
– Compensatory flood storage
– Mitigate adverse impacts to species
– Impervious surface limitations
– Minimum 5-acre lot size
Efforts to Implement BiOp
FEMA offered local governments 3 options to implement BiOp:
(1) Adopt a Model Ordinance prepared by FEMA;
(2) Demonstrate how existing regulations satisfy RPA Element 3; or
(3) Demonstrate ESA compliance within the floodplain on a permit-by-permit basis.
Efforts to Implement BiOp in Pierce County
Jurisdiction Door Approved? Jurisdiction Door Approved?
Bonney Lake 3 Not yet Pierce County 2 Not yet
Buckley 3 Yes Puyallup 2 Not yet
Eatonville 3 Yes Roy 1 Yes
Edgewood 3 Yes Ruston 3 Yes
Fife 2 Not yet South Prairie 3 Not yet
Fircrest 3 Not yet Steilacoom 3 Yes
Gig Harbor 2 Not yet Sumner 2 Not yet
Lakewood 3 Not yet Tacoma 2 Not yet
Milton 3 Yes University Place 3 Yes
Orting 2 Yes Wilkeson 3 Yes
Many Concerns with BiOp Implementation
• No formal rule making.
– FEMA relying on 44 CFR 60.3(a)(2), but the requirements are quite narrow.
• No public participation.
Many Concerns with BiOp Implementation
• Conflicts with other Washington laws.
• Example: SMA versus BiOp
– Competing Goals/Policies for same geographic areas
– BiOp = “no adverse effect” (or “no jeopardy”)
– SMA = “no net loss of shoreline ecological functions”
• FEMA and NMFS believe that BiOp requires local governments to adopt more restrictions than GMA or SMA -> Even more difficult to develop/redevelop property
Looking Ahead re BiOp
• Expect more litigation
– Most jurisdictions chose Door #2 or #3 (no changes to flood hazard regulations)
– NWF filed a 60-day notice of intent to file suit
• Property Owners for Sensible Floodplain Regulations
Ray Liaw - [email protected]
Molly Lawrence - [email protected]