PSP Salmon Recovery Council meeting
July 22, 2010
Renton City Hall
Floodplains/FEMA discussion
Steve Landino: salmon BIOP issues – not as much on levee issues
 Lawsuit in 2004 triggered BIOP development on FEMA – required FEMA to consult
 Found jeopardy
 Ongoing relationship with FEMA – very important issue to FEMA
 Presented small slide show on floodplain issues showed variety of conditions related to
diking and subsequent reduction in fish habitat.
 Seven elements of RPA schedule
1. Notification
2. Need models with their mapping
3. Floodplain management criteria is the biggest issue – all tier one communities
need to have revised regulatory approach to meet BIOP criteria. Model
ordinance from FEMA would meet criteria. FEMA attempted to do this, and
drew lots of heat. This is only one of the paths available. One outlet is to just
prevent development in the floodplain – some smaller communities have
adopted this.
 Determining compliance requires consultation, but NOAA cannot make them comply – it
takes a third party lawsuit to force compliance if local entity does not comply. NOAA
gets annual report through FEMA of what each entity does to comply (at least 1 year
removed).
 NOAA knows that development is affecting floodplain use for fish, and that mitigation is
required.
** Talk to Steve on side about how to find most egregious examples of development
where third party lawsuit could be successful. Floodplains behind less than 100 year
levee must meet BIOP/RPA requirements. No development in CMZ plus 50 feet. Many
locals do not map channel migration zone.



How should SRC engage to help this issue progress : David St. John
1. PSP has been engaged and written letters to FEMA and pointed out
implementation issue. Concerns mostly on implementation.
2. PSP only wants to help get to BIOP issues and not revisit BIOP. Focus on
implementation.
3. How engage now – offering to bring jurisdictions together to help ECY/FEMA
support doing the right things.
Millie’s report pointed out many ways to engage in protecting floodplains
Much group discussion – primary point is to get draft model regulations out to local
government ASAP


In BIOP help – element 4 of RPA – ID where good habitat is – local jurisdictions can get
credit for purchasing and protecting this. Reducing flood threats upstream reduces
rates downstream.
NOAA is now working well with FEMA (Mark Carey) May have joint announcement on
model regulation.
PSAR Capacity funds: Morgan Schneidler
 background document provided – revised July 15, 2010
 Jeanette described use of funds in Nisqually
1. Education and outreach – river stewards program
 Improve authorizing environment
 Educate local landowners
 Local class for residents
2. Continue Lead Entity core work – work plans and develop projects
3. Outreach to local elected in the watershed
4. Support capacity of local project implementers – land trust and SPSSEG
 Barbara: San Juan County
1. Participating in nearshore issues – adaptive management work
2. Landowner willingness
3. Project implementer/sponsors to create landowner willingness
4. Literally keeps doors open at Lead Entity
5. Base funding is at risk since it is from General Fund
Identifying projects of regional significance: Jason and John Meyer
 Produced a very large list of projects with “little” filtering for regional significance –
mostly directed at very large projects that don’t have current fund sources.
 Dave Herrera pointed out the PST recognition of chronically low populations that limit
international fisheries – could use this as one filter.