Download Habitat Asessment Factors Feb6_2015 FEMA R10 - STARR-Team

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.