Transcript National Flood Insurance Program Biological Opinion

Planning and Development Services
National Flood Insurance Program Biological Opinion
Compliance Proposal
Proposed Changes to SCC 14.34 and SCC 14.24
Tim DeVries, Project Manager
Gary R. Christensen, Director
Skagit County Planning & Development Services
“Helping You Plan and Build Better Communities”
July 19, 2011
Why?
 Lawsuit between National Wildlife Federation and
FEMA regarding the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) and FEMA failure to consult under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
 NWF prevailed, and FEMA had to consult with NMFS
on their NFIP under the ESA.
 Consultation resulted in a “jeopardy” opinion (i.e.
NFIP harms salmon and Orca).
Why?
 As a result, FEMA has to redesign NFIP program to comply
with ESA and avoid jeopardizing endangered species
(salmon and orca whales).
 Biological Opinion (Bi-Op) drafted by NMFS that provides a
path for compliance for FEMA if they follow the
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs).
 RPA 3 requires additional scrutiny to development within
regulated floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area).
 RPA 3 places burden on local jurisdictions to impose more
rigorous protections for species.
How to comply?
 122 NFIP participating jurisdictions in Western
Washington are required to choose one of three
paths:
 Door 1: adopt model ordinance developed by FEMA.
 Door 2: use a combination of existing regulations,
policies, and programs, and supplement with new
regulations where needed to comply with the Bi-Op.
 Door 3: permit-by-permit review showing no adverse
effect to protected species.
Timeframe & Consequences
 September 22, 2011, deadline for submittal and
approval by FEMA.
 If not met, default to “Door 3”, permit-by-permit
review.
 Consequence of not complying at all: Inability to
participate in NFIP (i.e. flood insurance available only
through private insurers).
Skagit County Approach
 Door 2
 Utilize existing critical areas review processes over a
broader geographic area within floodplain.
 Amend SCC 14.34 (Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance)
and SCC 14.24 (Critical Areas Ordinance) to meet certain
Bi-Op minimum criteria.
 Show FEMA how ongoing efforts as outlined in the
Skagit County Salmon Report protect species and
habitat.
 Strike a reasonable balance between species protection
and respecting property rights.
Why “Door 2”?
 Model ordinance (“Door 1”) too onerous and a bad fit.
Imposes large “no development” zones and disregards
local circumstances. Would supplant existing processes
and regulations that already work to protect species.
 Permit-by-permit review (“Door 3”) likely requires ESA
consultation-like review for all development throughout
floodplain. Too onerous and expensive for landowners.
 According to FEMA, nearly all jurisdictions choosing a
customized approach via “Door 2”.
Example of Protected Review Area
Protected Review Area
 Floodway (purple
crosshatch)
 Riparian Habitat Zone
(250’) (purple)
Remainder of floodplain
(beige)
Boundaries of floodplain
(deep orange)
Example of Protected Review Area
Example of Protected Review Area
(RHZ only; no floodway present)
How do proposed changes to SCC 14.24
and 14.34 affect landowners?
 Heightened habitat review for development
throughout floodplain.
 Some additional regulatory requirements on
development.
 NOTE: Agricultural practices & activities, livestock
management, and some other activities are exempt
from floodplain requirements (see proposed SCC
14.34.100(2).