Loading...
2021-08-30_FEMAFrom:Pilkenton, Roxanne To:Lori Barlow; Deanna Horton Subject:FEMA Comments - Painted Hills Development DRAFT DEIS Date:Monday, August 30, 2021 5:10:26 PM Attachments:image002.png Risk_MAP_Fact_Sheet_ESA.pdf[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when openingattachments or clicking links. Hi Lori & Deanna, Thank you for sending the DRAFT ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) for the Painted Hills Development, for FEMA review and comment. I have read the DRAFT ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) as well as Appendices A through I. My comments have been limited to those that are in direct correlation with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The first observation made while making the first read through of the material is that the DEIS does not seem to provide analysis for the entirety of the subject development or its potential effects outside of the project area. Are there parts of this proposed development that occur on land located in Unincorporated Spokane County? If so will a separate hearing and decision be made? Will both jurisdictions need to sign final plat/agreement/mapping documents? Will CLOMR/CLOMR-F applications need to be done by Spokane County? The scope of the DEIS and the attached Appendices do not appear to be consistent in their analysis of the alternatives, or even which alternatives are discussed. It appears that both a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on fill (CLOMR-F) will be required for this proposed development. The DEIS only identifies a CLOMR as required and the SEPA Checklist lists a CLOMR-F as required. Because the applicant is anticipating removal from the SFHA by both off and on-site storm drainage and channel improvements, as well as fill being added to the site, both a CLOMR and CLOMR-F will be required. A CLOMR-F will necessitate Spokane Valley (and Spokane County if fill is being added to the site in Unincorporated Spokane County) to sign the community acknowledgment form. I’ve attached a RISK Map Fact Sheet to this email that gives an overview of what a community will be attesting to with their signature on a CLOMR/CLOMR-F. On electronic page 15 of 279, partial paragraph, states that “Off-site and on-site storm drainage and channel improvements will be made that will result in the removal of approximately 48 acres of the site from the FEMA one percent-annual-chance floodplain (100-year floodplain).” The first full paragraph, details that “These improvements to the Gustin Ditch and to the triangle pond will eliminate the possibility of the floodwater inflows to the site from the east as modeled in the current FEMA floodplain insurance study for the area.” The second full paragraph asserts that “….will be completed that would also result in the removal of approximately 44 acres of off-site properties from the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Before these statements are made, the CLOMR/CLOMR-F would need to be reviewed and approved by FEMA. FEMA strongly suggests that Spokane Valley (and Spokane County as required) have the applicant submit the CLOMR/CLOMR-F and receive FEMA approval prior to issuing the needed permitting for the installation of dry wells and infiltration testing. FEMA has recently reviewed the Spokane Valley ordinance as part of a Community Assistance Contact and supports and approves the proposed new language that states “If a CLOMR application is made, then the project proponent shall also supply the full CLOMR documentation package to the Floodplain Administrator to be attached to the floodplain development permit, including all required property owner notifications.” The DEIS states on electronic page 24 of 179, in the fourth paragraph that “Because it is expected that the CLOMR review and the City construction document review will be occurring at the same time, the applicant expects that any system design revisions requested/required by FEMA to ensure approval of the CLOMR will be integrated with revisions to the construction document package as necessary before the City issues final approval of the construction document.” It appears as if there is already the assumption that system design changes could be required that further demonstrates why Spokane Valley (and Spokane County as required) have the applicant submit the CLOMR and CLOMR-F, receive approval, prior to issuing permits. FEMA suggests that if Spokane Valley (and Spokane County as required) considers approving the project that they would also consider adding a condition to the approval of the Painted Hills Development that no permits will be issued until the CLOMR/CLOMR-F are submitted to, and given approval from FEMA. FEMA can only approve a LOMR and LOMR-F if they are consistent with the approved CLOMR and CLOMR-F. Could Field changes in lieu of plans or process, not be allowed and all proposed changes are reviewed in consideration of the approved CLOMR and CLOMR-F documents? Spokane Valley (and Spokane County as required) will need to ensure that flood permits are issued for any work on City roads located in the SFHA. Any fill or changes to culverts, bridge abutments, etc. will need to be included in the CLOMR and CLOMR-F applications. FEMA recognizes that the subject property is located in the compensatory storage area designation of Spokane Valley. Because the DEIS speaks to the CLOMR removing this flood designation, FEMA suggests that the application for the CLOMR and CLOMR-F be approved by FEMA prior to permits being issued. FEMA suggests that both Spokane Valley and the applicant, separately, request to speak to the MT-2 processing team to discuss the anticipated staging of fill that will be brought and stored on the site, if located in the SFHA. The storage of fill for 4 to 10 years could change flooding conditions and the CLOMR-F, and the CLOMR may need to address this. The MT-2 team is happy to discuss the requirements for the CLOMR and CLOMR-F applications for this situation. If contact information is needed please let me know. The SEPA checklist states that approximately 25 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces, the DEIS states 25 percent in Alternative 2b, but 30 percent in Alternative 2a. The SEPA checklist states that “Off-site flood convenance improvements in Spokane County are anticipated on parcel numbers…..” FEMA would like to know how Spokane County is involved with the proposed project and where they are at with any required hearing or decision criteria. The SEPA checklist lists that the threatened or endangered species are “None known.” This seems to contradict information provided in Appendix H. QUESTION: When is Spokane Valley anticipating requiring that the LOMR and LOMR-F be approved? Would it be prior to buildings being constructed? Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any further information. Kind regards, Roxanne Roxanne Reale-Pilkenton, CFM Floodplain Management Specialist | Mitigation | Region 10 Office: (425) 487-4654 | Mobile: (425) 892-4036 roxanne.reale-pilkenton@fema.dhs.gov | Preferred pronouns she/her Federal Emergency Management Agency fema.gov Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region 10 is committed to providing access, equal opportunity, and reasonable accommodation in its services, programs, activities, education, and employment for individuals with disabilities. To request a disability accommodation contact me at least five (5) working days in advance at 425-487-4654 or roxanne.reale-pilkenton@fema.dhs.gov. OVERVIEW 1 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COMPLIANCE for Conditional Letters of Map Change The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 protects threatened and endangered species by preserving the ecosystems in which they live. The U.S. Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), collectively known as “the Services,” share the responsibility for administering the Act. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires documentation of compliance with the minimum ESA requirements for Conditional Letters of Map Change (CLOMCs). ESA Compliance for CLOMCs FEMA requires documentation of ESA compliance for a proposed project before it will process Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMRs) or Conditional Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-Fs) request, but it is not FEMA’s role to assist with accomplishing ESA compliance for private actions or non-FEMA federal actions. Private individuals and local and state jurisdictions are required to comply with the ESA independently of FEMA's process. Therefore, FEMA has no involvement in securing the required documentation or in obtaining or providing authorization for the proposed project. CLOMRs are FEMA’s comments on whether a construction project, if built as proposed, would impact a floodplain and therefore warrant a change to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) flood hazard maps. FEMA also issues CLOMR-Fs, which comment on whether a parcel of land or proposed structure, if elevated by fill as proposed, would be inundated by a base (1-percent-annual-chance) flood. RISK MAPPING, ASSESSMENT, AND PLANNING PROGRAM (RISK MAP) The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Risk MAP Program delivers quality data that increases public awareness and leads to action to reduce risk to life and property. Risk MAP is a nationwide program that works in collaboration with states, tribes, and local communities using best available science, rigorously vetted standards, and expert analysis to identify risk and promote mitigation action, resulting in safer, more resilient communities. Endangered Species Act The purpose of the ESA is to conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Species at risk of extinction are considered endangered, whereas species that are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future are considered threatened. The ESA prohibits any actions by communities, developers, private citizens, etc., from "taking" or "harming" endangered wildlife. Similar prohibitions are generally extended, by regulation, to threatened wildlife. Private individuals and local and state jurisdictions are required to comply with the ESA independently of FEMA's process. Section 7 of the ESA requires each federal agency to ensure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits anyone from “taking” or harming an endangered species. This includes non-federal projects. If an action might harm an endangered species, a permit may be obtained from the Services under Section 10 of the ESA. Risk MAP Increasing Resilience Together FEMA 2 FEMA issues these comments before construction occurs in the floodplain. FEMA’s comments on the proposed project’s impact to the flood hazard maps do not constitute a permit or approval of the proposed development; the authority to approve projects and issue building permits lies with the local government and, in some instances, state agencies. ESA Compliance Documentation for Projects with Federal Actions If federal construction, funding or permitting is involved in a project for which a CLOMR or CLOMR-F has been requested, then the applicant may use that agency’s Section 7 consultation to document to FEMA that ESA compliance has been achieved. The ESA documentation may be: 1. A “No Effect” determination made by, or concurred by, the federal agency; 2. A “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination with concurrence from the Services; 3. A biological opinion with a “no jeopardy” determination or with accepted reasonable and prudent alternatives; or 4. A copy of a federally issued permit with justification that the proposed development for which a CLOMR or CLOMR-F is sought is covered by the permit. ESA Compliance Documentation for Non-Federal Projects While FEMA does not play a role in ESA compliance for proposed private development, these projects are required to comply with the ESA independently of FEMA's process. For these projects, the requester must document that: 1. No potential for “Take” exists (meaning that the project has no potential to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) to threatened and endangered species. The requester will be responsible for the potential for take determination and the determination is not required to come from, or be concurred by, the Services. 2. If the requester determines a “Take” will or has a potential to occur, they can consider contacting the Services to discuss potential project revisions to eliminate the “Take.” 3. If neither 1 or 2 are possible and the project has the potential to “Take” listed species, an Incidental Take Permit may be submitted showing that the project is the subject, or is covered by the subject, of the permit. Resources for Additional Information: FEMA: For more information on CLOMCs and ESA compliance, as well as additional resources and “Frequently Asked Questions,” visit https://www.fema.gov/compliance-endangered-species-act-letters-map- change. FWS: The U.S. Department of Interior’s FWS shares responsbility for the implementation of the ESA. For additional information about ESA and permitting requirements, visit: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we- do/consultations-overview.html and https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. NMFS: With the FWS, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s NMFS administers the ESA. For more information about how the NMFS implements the Act, visit: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/. Definitions Conditional Letter of Map Change (CLOMC): CLOMCs include Conditional Letters of Map Revision and Conditional Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill. Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR): A CLOMR is a letter from FEMA commenting on a proposed project that would, if built as proposed, affect the hydrologic and/or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the effective regulatory floodway, Base (1-percent-annual-chance) Flood Elevations, and/or Special Flood Hazard Areas. Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-F): A CLOMR-F is a FEMA letter commenting on whether a parcel of land or a proposed structure that will be elevated by fill would not be inundated by the base flood, if fill is placed on the parcel as proposed or the structure is built on fill as proposed. These letters do not revise the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maps; rather, they comment on the flood hazard mapping implications of future projects.