FEMA joins fight to save endangered salmon

BREMERTON, Wash. -- Entering uncertain waters, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency must now protect salmon as well as human life and property.FEMA joins numerous federal, state and local agencies required to protect threatened and endangered species as part of their mission. The change is required because FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program has been found to threaten the survival of listed salmon and killer whales by allowing people to build in flood-prone areas.This week, some 121 cities and counties in Western Washington will receive a two-page letter from FEMA that foretells potentially profound consequences for property owners who want to build near a river or stream. Local governments may choose to comply with new directives by issuing a temporary building moratorium across the 100-year flood plain.All this activity is triggered by a 240-page "biological opinion" from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The document spells out steps that FEMA must take to stay within the law, as the agency shifts some of its effort into saving salmon.Mark Carey, regional director of FEMA's mitigation division, said it isn't clear how many Puget Sound communities will be required to strengthen their land-use regulations to qualify for flood insurance. Without flood insurance, banks are prohibited from approving loans for homes and businesses.While FEMA's previous standards don't go far enough and new standards are needed, some communities are already operating under stricter requirements through their critical areas ordinances and shoreline management programs."Most Puget Sound communities are already robust floodplain managers," Carey said. "They have been dealing with salmon for quite a while. We are hoping that a lot of the communities are already meeting the higher standards."Carey said his office is proud of its record in preventing and responding to disasters, but protecting salmon -- and the killer whales that depend on salmon for food -- is a new world."FEMA has not traditionally and culturally had to look at that until now, although we recognize the importance of salmon," he said.Initially, FEMA was reluctant to come under the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. A lawsuit filed by the National Wildlife Federation forced the agency to "consult" with the National Marine Fisheries Service about protecting listed species."It became clear that implementation of the (flood insurance) program was pushing fish and orcas closer to extinction," said Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice, who represented the National Wildlife Federation in the case.Steve Landino of the National Marine Fisheries Service said he was pleased that, after the court decision, FEMA officials got down to business and became a partner in drafting the biological opinion. Writing the document took two years.Landino said the impact of the decision could be different from place to place, depending on natural functions and values as well as human development."It is easy for me to say that you shouldn't build in the floodplain because it harms the river system," he said, "but a place that is all built out may already be lost. In some places, mitigation will play out more than not building at all. In other places, we would rather not see any floodplain development."Because the Kitsap Peninsula has no large rivers, the effects of the biological opinion will probably be less than for Skagit or Snohomish counties, where farmhouses and buildings are found near the Skagit and Snohomish rivers, he said.FEMA's biological opinion spells out many ways the National Flood Insurance Program is detrimental to fish habitat. For example, a variety of slow-flowing, natural channels are important for rearing juvenile salmon, yet many such channels have been filled in over the years. In fact, FEMA regulations allow a landowner to take his property out of a floodplain -- and avoid higher insurance rates -- simply by filling his land until it lies above the flood level, the document says."Once property is removed from the floodplain, it is no longer necessary for the property owner to comply with the community's floodplain regulations or purchase flood insurance," states the biological opinion. "And once out of the floodplain, these properties become available for land-use development and construction that might have otherwise been prohibited or constrained by community floodplain regulations."Therefore, the NFIP mapping process, especially the map revising activities, contribute to human alteration of the floodplain, adversely affecting the habitat and habitat forming processes that occur there."FEMA's biological opinion suggests prohibiting development anywhere in the 100-year floodplain. But if development is allowed, then an equal amount of floodplain storage and fish habitat should be created elsewhere and storm-water runoff from the project should be retained on site through low-impact development.(Christopher Dunagan is a reporter for the Kitsap Sun in Bremerton, Wash.)