National Flood Insurance Program Biological Opinion: - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

National Flood Insurance Program Biological Opinion: A Local Perspective

byGino Lucchetti and Brian Murray King County Water and Land Resources DivisionDecember 9, 2016

Slide2

Presentation OverviewThe ESA “2-Step”

What’s behind door number….Programmatic Habitat Assessment FrameworkKing County in ContextMethods and Results for King County (Briefly!)Topics for Discussion

Slide3

The ESA “Two-Step”

First Step: stop harm, stabilizeconduct recovery planningkeep options open Second Step:

Implement Recovery Actions (priority, sequence)Monitor and AssessManage adaptively, change as necessary

NFIP

BiOp

and Programmatic Habitat Assessment (PHA) are “First Step” activities

Slide4

Perspective Assessing Change from Baseline(ESA Step 1 of 2)

Restore

Maintain

Degrade

OK

Not OK

Slide5

We’ll Take Door Number…..?

Adopt model ordinance2. Checklist and narrative3. Permit by permit assessment

Slide6

Door #1:Model Ordinance problematic because…

Best Available Science: Process Vs. A NumberSome BiOp buffers larger (35 to 85 feet) than King County’sIn 2005, King County passed landmark Critical Areas Ordinance (

aka The CAO) that increased buffers significantlyClearing Limits -WA Courts affirmed KC’s science basis (BAS), but….

Implementation unconstitutional

Slide7

Door #3:Permit-by-Permit

Technical and administrative complexities Cost to landowners and the County No improved understanding of floodplain and salmon recovery issues

Slide8

Door #2:We’ll take the one in the middle.

ChecklistBut for effects rather than RPA complianceUse NFMS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for “Properly Functioning Habitat”Precautionary (ESA requirement) – Minimize Type II ErrorTest Assumptions: Monitor and Adapt

Slide9

King County’s Programmatic Habitat AssessmentFramework

Nested Scales: Watershed to ParcelFuture Cumulative EffectsSpatially-explicit Action-specific

Habitat parameter specific – In future, are habitat variables likely to: a) degrade, b) be restored or c) stay the same? (*degrade for any one is unacceptable!

)

Precautionary! Be conservative

Transferable to others!

Slide10

Urban

Forestry, Water Supply & WildernessRural

King County in Context

Rural

Shoreline

Four Major Dams

Two Big Waterfalls

One Island (marine shoreline)

Re-plumbed rivers

Something for everyone!

Slide11

Snoqualmie River

Green River

Cedar River

Vashon Island

Range of Land use Conditions

Puget Sound

Urban Boundary

Slide12

Future Development

Private Undeveloped Parcels with development potential in the floodplain

Slide13

2010

2013

Cedar River - Rhode Levee

Future

Restoration Potential:

Since 2008:

Over 500

floodplain acres acquired, 225 structures removed

Slide14

Protected Area BuffersNFIP

BiOp vs. King CountyFloodplain

Regulatory ElementBiOpKing County BAS

Floodway

Same

Same

Channel Migration Zone

CMZ

+50 ft or,

entire floodplain

if no mapped CMZ

CMZ –

no setback and

only a few areas mapped

Buffers:

Type S

– streams that are

Shorelines of the State250’

165’Type F - fish bearing streams > 5 feet wide200’165’Type N – streams

< 5-feet wide, non-fish-bearing, lake and marine shorelines150’165’ – with fish-bearing potential65’ - with no fish potential

Slide15

“Delta Area” = BiOp Protected Area – Area Protected under King County Regulations

Slide16

Assessing Parcel Status (See Report for Detailed Methodology!)

1. Identify parcels with FEMA floodplain (8,980) and Floodplain Delta (5,486)2. Remove parcels above barriers (1,928), on tribal lands (12) and duplicate records (49)3. Identify permanent open space (POS) parcels (838) (restoration potential)

4. Screen for “undeveloped” private parcels (< $10,000 improvements, KC Assessor’s data), and5. Use high resolution (0.3 m)

orthophotos

to individually assess

parcels (

2,275) and remove:

already developed (548),

in-water, on gravel bars and beaches (59), with very small amounts of floodplain (349), with insufficient area to build house, septic and water systems outside the severe CMZ and floodway (802), and

expected to annex to a city (1)

6. Remainder

= Private parcels with development potential in the floodplain

Slide17

Modeling the future

Future condition uncertain, and…ESA requires precautionary approachTherefore, to minimize potential for Type II Error (no effect when, in fact, there is an effect):somewhat overstate the potential for degradation (loss

of forest cover, increase in impervious), and somewhat understate the potential for restoration (increase in forest cover, loss of impervious).

Slide18

What is the Likely Effect of Future Actions?Habitat Variables

(Q: degrade, be restored, or stay the same?)Water Quality: Temperature, Sediment/Turbidity, Chemistry, Contaminants/NutrientsAccess

: physical barriers (KC has active to remove barriers)Habitat Elements: substrate, pools, large wood, off-channel and refuge habitats

Channel Condition and Dynamics

: width/depth, banks, buffers and connectivity

Flow/hydrology

: Peak/base flows, drainage network

Drainage

: road density, disturbance history, riparian reserves

Slide19

Projected Effect on Habitat Variables

Restore

Maintain

Degrade

Future

T

ime

Current

Potential net

e

ffect of actions in PHA

Probable additional effort for ESA recovery

U

ncertainty

Best

Worst

Habitat Condition

Slide20

Monitoring & Adaptive Management

Test hypotheses and check assumptions after 5-10 yearsSpecial Use Permits would require separate PHA3. Annual Reporting

Slide21

Key Findings

Comprehensive Approach - Combination of regulations, capital improvement projects (CIPs) and programmatic actions contribute to floodplain health and salmon recovery. Future development precluded or severely limited in many areas - Agricultural lands (~51% of floodplain area), current use taxation, public benefit rating, transfer of development rights, forest and farmland preservation and open space acquisitionsFloodplains benefit from upstream and adjacent regulated areas

:Stream Buffers = 8,300 acres (coho-bearing streams)Adjacent wetlands = 2,100 acres

Channel

migration areas

beyond

a mapped FEMA

floodplain = 760

Hazardous Area within one-thousand feet of a floodplain - Steep (>40%) slopes

= 6,300 acres

Landslide areas = 11,800

acres

Erosion areas = 18,000 acres, and

Critical

aquifer recharge area

= 30,000 acres

Flood and Salmon Plans have future benefits not fully accounted for in PHA - Many additional future actions not assessed, e.g., the County has or will soon build several floodplain reconnection projects in or near mapped FEMA floodplains

Slide22

Conclusions

Land-use in floodplains under King County jurisdiction may affect, but would not likely adversely affect ESA species and will result in no adverse effects within the BiOp Protected Area.Most, if not all, habitat variables would likely be on an improving trajectory but not likely “restored” for any given variable (as per criteria for NMFS Matrix of Pathways and Indicators).

Effects of historic and existing land uses may be as much or greater concern as the effects of future development on the County’s floodplains and ESA-listed species. …on to ESA Step 2?

Slide23

ESA OK

FEMA Approved July 9, 2012

http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/flooding/documents/programmatic-habitat-assessment.aspx

Slide24

Topics for Discussion

Nested approach: parcel scale problem requires a larger scale solutionAdaptation: Test your hypotheses!FEMA Levee Accreditation – Is this Door #4?Programmatic mitigation opportunities?

Opportunity to demonstrate compliance vs. effectiveness?

Slide25

Acknowledgements

The assistance of FEMA Region X and NOAA staff, especially Barry Gall, John Graves, Mark Eberlein, Mark Carey, Bonnie Shorin and Randy McIntosh, is greatly appreciated Department of Natural Resources and Parks 

River and Floodplain Management Section Contributing Staff:Sylvia Aro, Administrative SpecialistSteve Bleifuhs, ManagerPriscilla Kaufmann, Co-Lead, Project/Program Manager, Countywide Policy and Planning Unit

Brian Murray, Supervisor, Countywide Policy and Planning Unit

Ken Zweig, Project/Program Manager, Countywide Policy and Planning Unit

 

Scientific and Technical Support Section Contributing Staff:

Gino Lucchetti, Co-Lead, Environmental Scientist

Ruth Schaefer, Environmental Scientist Jennifer Vanderhoof, Environmental Scientist

 

Stormwater

Services Contributing Staff:

Curt Crawford, Manager

Ken Krank, Supervising Engineer

Doug Navetski, Senior Engineer

Mark Wilgus, Senior Engineer

 

Agriculture and Forestry ProgramKathy Creahan, ManagerClaire Dyckman, Program/Project Manager

Rick Reinlasoder, Program/Project Manager   Wastewater Treatment Division Contributing Staff:Steve Hirschey, Water Quality Planner

 Department of Development and Environmental Services Director’s Office Contributing Staff:

Harry Reinert, Special Projects Manager Information Services Contributing Staff:Paul McCombs, GIS Specialist, Master

 Land Use Services Division, Critical Area Review Contributing Staff:Steve Bottheim, Supervisor, Land Use Services Division

Pesha Klein, Acting Supervisor, Critical Areas Review

Greg Wessel, Environmental Scientist

 

Department of Public Health

 

Community Environmental Health Contributing Staff:

Gregory Bishop, Health and Environmental Investigator

David Koperski, Health and Environmental Investigator

 

Slide26

Questions?