* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Habitat Asessment Factors Feb6_2015 FEMA R10 - STARR-Team
Survey
Document related concepts
Toxicodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Overexploitation wikipedia , lookup
Riparian-zone restoration wikipedia , lookup
Extinction debt wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Wildlife crossing wikipedia , lookup
Decline in amphibian populations wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Wildlife corridor wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Source–sink dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Habitat Conservation Plan wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Habitat destruction wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
February 6, 2015 Variables and Processes that Habitat Assessments must Adequately Discuss Comply with the NFIP Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in the Puget Sound Basin Introduction This guidance is not the sole means of ensuring that habitat assessments carried out to comply with the NFIP RPA are sufficient. It is merely a companion tool to other existing documents that describe how to assess impacts to ESA-listed species and their designated critical habitat to in accord with the Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2008) for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in Puget Sound. Anyone preparing or reviewing habitat assessments for project in the floodplain or floodway need to be familiar with the requirements contained within the RPA for the NFIP in Puget Sound, pertinent appendices, the frequently asked questions (FAQs) memos issued by FEMA Region 10 regarding the RPA, and the advice contained in the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation – Regional Guidance for the Puget Sound Basin (FEMA 2013). All of these documents are available at the FEMA Region 10 NFIP ESA internet site at http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-endangered-species-act. Factors that all habitat assessments must address The RPA for the NFIP in Puget Sound requires that effects on floodplain features and functions must be identified and avoided or mitigated to prevent harm to ESA listed fish species and killer whales that feed on those fish. The features and functions that must be considered include, but are not necessarily be limited to: native riparian vegetation, pervious soils, water infiltration, flood storage capacity, river volume and velocity, and river bank conditions, and habitat forming processes (discussed in more detail on following pages). These variables are also discussed in the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation – Regional Guidance for the Puget Sound Basin (FEMA 2013). It is important to note that the existing baseline (pre-project) conditions r must be described. The existing conditions inform what habitat features and functions currently exist in any given parcel, and provide important information about what effects of future development may occur. The potential direct and indirect impacts due to project actions to existing/remaining habitat values are then estimated, along with any direct effects to ESA-listed individual fish or population (e.g. fish handling, harassment, predation, etc…). A well performed assessment describes how, or if, these impacts act as ‘stressors ‘ to ESA-listed fish, and how individual fish that use the nearby water body respond to these stressors given their baseline conditions. . Depending on conditions and project design or location, some proposals will not impair many of the habitat variables. As the FEMA regional guidance describes, the contents and details included in habitat assessments will vary according to the scope, scale, and location of project proposals, and their potential to impact ESA-listed species and/or designated critical habitats. Simple projects with little or no potential for adverse effects due to their nature or relative location to habitats that potentially support ESA-listed species will likely only need relatively brief habitat assessments to justify and document why that is the case. The details and content of assessments need to increase proportionally as the potential and/or risk for adverse effects increase. Complex projects may also require more detailed assessments to address and documents all the aspects of the project. In all cases the writer must provide sufficient documentation so that a reader reviewing the assessment who does not have first-hand knowledge of the project would find sufficient support and evidence for the determination made, and the adequacy of design elements to avoid adverse effects. The NFIP RPA states that projects to occur within the Protected Area, must not cause adverse effects (i.e. they must be fully avoided, not just minimized or compensated for) over either short- or long-term temporal scales to. The features that must not be impaired are: 1) water quality; 2) water quantity; 3) flood volumes; 4) flood velocities; 5) spawning substrate; or 6) floodplain refugia for ESA-listed fish. The habitat assessment then must include a site specific description of existing condition, when any action is proposed within the Protected Area, in order to determine if the proposed project will impair features and functions of floodplain habitat. For example, a proposal to convert existing buildings to new use, plus expand the buildings into areas currently used as paved parking will have different effects to habitat values (which are already low on the subject parcel) than a proposal for a new commercial structure with parking on land that is currently fallow agricultural or pasture land (which has relatively high habitat values). The RPA lists actions presumed to have potential negative effects on the habitat values: “new buildings, including accessory buildings; new impervious surfaces; removal of native vegetation; new clearing, grading, filling, land-disturbing activity or other ‘development’ (see definition), dumping of any materials, hazardous or sanitary waste landfills; and receiving or storage areas for toxic or hazardous waste or other contaminants.” The RPA also exempts certain activities: replacing non-native vegetation with native vegetation, other approved restoration work; septic tanks and drain fields,; and, stream relocations to restore natural ecological function.” Avoiding adverse effects is required for actions in the protected area, but adverse effects may occur with mitigation of those effects, when the work occurs in the remainder of the floodplain. Any negative effects to stormwater discharge; riparian vegetation; channel migration; large woody debris throughout the floodplain and within channels; gravel recruitment; the hyporheic function; wetlands; and/or bank stability that are caused by projects occurring outside of the protected area must be fully mitigated. Thus, a habitat analysis is required for development regardless of location in the floodplain. Correct habitat assessments are the foundation necessary to assess the potential for adverse impacts to individual fish, or their populations, and to the Primary Constituent Elements (variables) of designated critical habitats. Habitat assessments must indicate the possible impacts due to any direct, indirect, interdependent, interrelated, or cumulative effects. See both the FEMA habitat assessment guidance and the “ESA Consultation Handbook” (NMFS and USFWS 1998) at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esa_section7_handbook.pdf for definitions and discussion of each of those categories of effect. Another useful reference is the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (NMFS 1996) which describes how to assess 18 population and habitat variables when analyzing the impacts of a proposed action on ESA-listed fish and their designated critical habitats. This document can be found at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/Reference-Documents/upload/matrix_1996.pdf and it is also discussed in FEMA Region 10’s habitat assessment guidance. In summary, the habitat features and natural processes identified always need to be considered, but they do not represent the only factors that may need to be assessed. Please refer to the links above for references and examples of other variables and functions to consider when conducting habitat assessments, including the Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation – Regional Guidance for the Puget Sound Basin (FEMA 2013). Degradation of any of these variables may have the potential to negatively impact individuals or populations. The assessment must: a) analyze how/if these variables will be impacted by the proposed action; b) how/if the impacts constitute stressors to ESA-listed fish species; c) how individual fish and fish populations respond to those stressors; and d) arrive at an overall effects determination for each potentially impacted species.