Friday, February 21, 2020 9:00 am – 12:00 pm

Broadway Commons – Grant Room

1300 Broadway St NE, Salem, OR 97301

Meeting Notes

Workshop objectives:

• Update folks on progress in FEMA implementation planning • Create a space for agencies to hear frank feedback and advice from partners • Outline intended next steps and opportunities for additional input

High-level take-homes:

What agency staff heard most from participants is the need for an approach that is… • Pragmatic, implementable, simple, clear – limits impact on communities and is simple

for local government staff to enact and communicate to the public. • Tailored and effective – focuses on actions and parts of the floodplain where benefits

for fish are the greatest and impacts to development the least. Remember development has to go somewhere.

• Timely – further delay puts fish and communities at risk and prolongs the challenges for staff trying to track and weigh in.

• Inclusive and responsive – shows input provided by stakeholders and how it has been used to craft solutions.

• Integrative but not over-reaching – pays attention to other state policies and programs, tries to fit well into the broader context, but doesn’t try to solve every problem at once.

• Well supported by state and federal agencies – provides resources, technical assistance, mapping, etc. needed to ease implementation.

Notes:

9:00 am - 9:15 am Welcome & introductions Agency Team: Erin Cooper, CFM, NFIP/ESA Specialist, FEMA Region X, erin.cooper@fema.dhs.gov John Graves, Branch Chief, Floodplain Management & Insurance, FEMA Region X, john.graves@fema.dhs.gov Bonnie Shorin, NOAA Fisheries, bonnie.shorin@noaa.gov Celinda Adair, NFIP Coordinator, Department of Land Conservation and Development, celinda.adair@state.or.us Matt Crall, Planning Services Division Manager, Department of Land Conservation and Development, matthew.crall@state.or.us Sara O’Brien (facilitator) Willamette Partnership, obrien@willamettepartnership.org Setting the Intention – John Graves, FEMA

• Provide updates around resetting efforts in Oregon • Hear from participants on how to move this forward • Need a program that is ESA compliant but also needs to work • Frank feedback on opportunities and challenges • There’s a lot of community and good heads in the room; we think we can get something done

9:15 am - 9:45 am Agency team presentation Presentations - see attached slides Questions and comments

• Timeline – the 18 months is from when FEMA is given the go ahead to implement (after the NEPA process);

• Not clear what form of NEPA review FEMA will go through; depends on what the plan looks like at the end of the day; draft set of options by the end of 2020 into NEPA

• What’s happening with the interim measures? All the information is still up on the DLCD website but mostly as historical

• Will Agency Team meet federal deadlines and what happens if they’re not met? Agencies are going to do everything possible to meet timeline for implementation plan; not all communities may be able to meet the requirements within the 18-month window; it’s about getting right, not necessarily doing it fast.

• Consequences of missing the deadline are unclear; might ask for an extension. • Original timeframe for implementation was around 6-8 years. Interim measures were intended to

ensure that jeopardy isn’t occurring while that implementation took it’s time. • Who is doing tribal consultation and where does it fit into the timeline? Working with tribes in a

similar way as participating communities; no separate formal consultation for tribes. State is participating in those outreach activities but nothing separate/formal. There hasn’t been a request from tribes for formal government to government consultation.

• Focus seems to just be on state; no CFR changes? Correct – not within this process. There is a parallel process happening nationally (at some point the state and federal processes will need to align).

9:45 am - 10:15 am Break-out groups Summary sentence from each break-out group (full flip-chart notes in appendix) Group 1 – The success of this program depends on outreach, with the result that the program would be implementable. Group 2 – Enthusiastic Oregonians save salmon with simple solutions that work for people and salmon. Group 3 – This is really complicated and if this is going to get done in a way that actually works for affordable housing, agriculture, watersheds, ports, coastal, urban and rural communities, then thinking through the details and avoiding unintended consequences really matter. Group 4 – Looking at this in a synergistic and holistic way with stormwater Group 5 – Good luck! Group 6 – There is another process running concurrently by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality called Hydro Mod, and it will be important for the ESA-NFIP work to be coordinated with the Hydro Mod process. Group 7 - We need to map the floodplain based on climate change soon so that we can implement needed changes, taking into consideration the development community, before an extinction event occurs Group 8 – Apply a real mitigation sequences (first avoid!) but then mitigation must be simple to execute 10:45 am - 11:15 am Panel discussion/Q&A What advice or guidance would you most like to share with the agency team?

• Would like not to sue agencies again; but the BiOp is not implementable as written. • Ditto concept of defaulting (mapping and regulating to a map) to 100-year floodplain for the

implementation plan is not realistic in many areas. • Most of us who are regulating these, this is one small piece of the job that we do, if it’s too

complicated for us to explain/implement, then that’s a failure on the agencies’ part. • This has been one of the more open BiOp processes in terms of including the community;

please keep this moving forward; the BiOp is defensible. Delays put communities and fish in jeopardy.

• If all of the different limitations related to both flood and wildfire are implemented, that effectively shuts down development across most of the state. Agencies need to coordinate on this.

• Need some clarification on what exactly the area that is going to be regulated. Is it floodway, 10-year, 100-year, geomorphic floodplain?

• Do the right thing (often means fish before people); public culture is often people before fish. Need to understand that.

• Need for interagency and stakeholder watershed planning and data synthesis; have been talking about this for decades and still not doing it.

• Oregon is in an acute housing affordability crisis. Need places for people to live. Should be looking for places we can encourage development

• Grab low hanging fruit; find areas where the most benefit could be gained while having the least impact for people

• Priority should be to find more funding for local watersheds; if we want salmon recovery – then watershed councils are key. The on the ground reality of rural communities is pretty tough; easy to talk about this if you’re living in an urban community and don’t understand how this is going to impact.

Questions on anything we’ve discussed so far?

• Definition of area being addressed by BiOp o 100-year floodplain but with potential for greater limitations in the most flood prone

areas (like a 10-year floodplain), less restrictive further out. • FEMA is doing work not covered by this process;

o Mapping activities but implementation of the NFIP at the permit level is the focus • What is currently percolating around the implementation outline?

o Loosely based around what happened in Puget Sound but we recognize that big parts of that might not work here

o Agencies have been compiling all the work done to date and trying to figure out what options are workable moving forward

o Currently open to a lot of ideas; looking for ways that will work for folks and also meet objectives

o 3 door approach in WA: felt to be burdensome and so the OR RPA tried not to mirror that

• What other ways are there for people to get more involved, dive in to details of implementation?

o There will be a webinar and next workshops will be diving into the details and engage people to help with the process around a not-one size fits all approach

• What are jurisdictions complying with, exactly? o In the process of implementing the BiOp, FEMA will need to ask communities to meet

different standards as a condition of participation in the (voluntary) NFIP o There is some language in the FAQ that address the compliance issue

11:15 am – 11:30 am Closing, next steps

• Thank you, thank you, thank you! • Agency team will reconvene over the next few months, come back with implementation options

that reflect the feedback today and in the past, the best we can • Watch for an invite for a more “in the weeds” workshop in May

Appendix: Full Flip-Chart Notes

Breakout Sessions Questions:

1. Share one word that summarizes your feelings, experience, or understanding of the BiOp so far

2. What hopes and fears do you have about this process moving forward? 3. What advice would you like to give the team of agencies as they contemplate new NFIP

guidance (including both process and content suggestions)?

Group 1 - Emily 1. Share one word Biology

Muddled Limited Confusing Ambitious Unclear Anticipating Unrealistic Important

2. Hopes/Fears Fears • That this will be another 10-year process • Not implementable by folks on the ground • Lack of resources to incentivize or support • Endless litigation • Trigger for economic recession • Increases antagonism of community • Repeat of previous process – and not being a part of it • Negative impact on fish • Losing sight of “big picture”, long-term needs versus short term

Hopes • One size does not fit all, calibrated for the local government

structure • Clear state support with time to implement • Floodplain protections • Accessibility to guidance, communication • Legally defensible, some level of immunity, practical • Relate to other problems; riparian, regulatory • Evaluation of slopes, quality emphasis instead of quantity • DLCD – clarity on mandatory priorities for land use requirements

3. Advice • Regular communications with stakeholders • Review other regulatory integration local programs • Land use goals 5 and 7 have to be integrated from beginning • Reach out to developers, building associations to get their input

and feedback* • Use past DLCD workgroup advice

• Stakeholder meetings should be held throughout the state, consistently

• Written comment periods should be included • If the 18-month timeline doesn’t work – what of? (from

leadership/staff) • Acknowledge the need for previous impacted standards and other

approaches (3 doors) • Focus on relationships, communication* • Can webinars have breakout sessions? • Include congressional delegation staff – keep up-to-date and in the

loop • Don’t try to solve all the problems (other programs exist) stay in

lane but integrate

Group 2 - Kristiana 1. Share one word Confused

Disrupted Great-great-great-great- grandchildren Complicated Frustrated Extensive

2. Hopes/Fears Fears • It’s not going to work – small project x2 $, doesn’t save fish • Current built environment won’t have exemptions • Fail because key voice was missing in process – voice becomes loud

later • Unnecessary delay/overly bureaucratic results • This process won’t go anywhere, we won’t know what’s going on • Enthusiasm for participation will fade • Admin risk process + biological process - over-protection in areas

where there aren’t fish, under-protection of areas where there are fish

Hopes • Clarity + simplicity of implementation so it’s manageable • Orderly implementation – not a sudden rule change • Solutions that work for people and salmon • Oregonians save salmon • Implementation strategy that works for communities and salmon • Clear expectations about that needs to be implemented – where it

applies/maps • Consideration of different groups/jurisdictions affected e.g.

cities/county 3. Advice • Better integration of state and federal processes, frequent

communication between • Make sure all stakeholders are involved

o Process is primarily government – other stakeholders are not government – users of government

o Stakeholders for fish

• Try to consider indirect impacts/unintended consequences that push people to impact fish in a different way

• KISS • Put yourself in the place of people impacted by implementation

o Property owners, employees who have to implement • “Community” is different in different kinds of jurisdictions, keep in

mind they manage different kinds of land • End product has to pass “straight face test”

o Actions are actually going to benefit fish

Group 3 - Nicole 1. Share one word Complex

Dragging Overreach Broad Hopeful Unnecessary Confused/muddled

2. Hopes/Fears Fears • Will exacerbate housing crisis facing local communities (how will it

pass the test of aligning with local goals?) • Unintended consequences of how this will impact ag sector • Compromised property rights and local economies (for some,

development will essentially be suspended) • Current definition of “water dep uses”, not broad enough to

capture activities that need to occur along water • Won’t be robust enough/won’t be resources to actually implement

the plan • One size fits all mandates

Hopes • Provide ways to integrate multiple jurisdictions trying to address

complex floodplain/stormwater management/ climate resilience • Agencies will listen to communities and act on concerns/input of

those communities, engagement is meaningful • RPA must clarify role of floodplains behind levees (if they are not

salmonid habitat, then they shouldn’t be regulated as soon) • Transition away from property – specific to watershed-based

regulation 3. Advice • Fund local stakeholder/government participation

• Fund intergovernmental collaboration within watersheds • Fund hydrologic studies, equity studies, climate flood modelling • Develop a fund for property buyouts; this can’t be a burden for

local governments • Provide flexibility in how mitigation is required (e.g.

upstream/outside UGB) • Community best practices for how to provide affordable housing

within floodplain (e.g. Houston after Harvey) • DLCD should revisit SW planning goals (especially goals 11 and 14)

to account for new limitations • Don’t implement in a vacuum, really take into account how this is

going to impact stakeholders/communities

• Maximize value of wetland connection for flood storage and salmonid habitat within state/federal regulatory changes

• Figure our more ways to engage stakeholders beyond 3 workshops

Group 4 - Celinda 1. Share one word Hopeful (x2)

Impatient Bureaucracy (x2) Tedious Overdue Consistent

2. Hopes/Fears Fears • Political gridlock (x2) • Lots of bad dev while we wait lead to more litigation • That we won’t get something that accounts for this diversity • Req overly restrictive but not impact senseless rules

Hopes • Something on the ground + effect • Clear and objective to implement • Something on the ground on the timeline consistent with bi-op • Prescription/options recognize diversity in communities rural/urban,

small/large • FEMA actually take local feedback this time

3. Advice • Relevant development examples that locals can run through their process to see what they would mean if implemented and what outcomes would be

• Ground truthing prior to end of process • Look at interface with other rules • Stormwater drainage, policy, holistic view, corridors (floodplain and

streams not detached) • Don’t make it fish versus economic development/housing

conversation • Zoom in on timeline. Get it done this time! Make hard decisions and

implement them – go forward • Use past information provided by communities • Incentives in rules • Look at whole stream • Rules need to come with resources for implementation tools to ID

higher value resources, data needed to implement • Concurrently with other agency programs • City-wide assessment to determine where priority areas are to avoid

permit by permit approach • Consistency • Coordinate and work with ODFW (fish passage rules for streams) • DSL • DEQ • Provide resources to do community wide BA (grant program) • Programmatic approach with $/financial support (grant) • Coordinate with government 100-year water vision – leverage that

effort to find resources for community wide BA • Coordinate with DOGAMI (LIDAR provider)

• Tie everything (requirements) back to the science so not easy to challenge

• Look at different types of floodplains (different habitat values) • 10 year or 25 year more rep of habitat areas. 100 year can be so far

away from flooding source • Hear/tracking – how feedback is addressed, why its incorporated or

not, what happens to comments – now dealt with • Process – efficiency (like skipping group report out) • Additional communications tools*

o Explaining the science (streams are different) o Fish habitat is stream corridor) o Habitat value areas may not match clearly 100 year o Loss history – template community could put numbers into

• Help local officials – avoided damage benefits of this • PR – frame it more positive; economic + ecological benefits, make

communities better/more healthy • Lots of communication with elected officials (all levels) needs to

happen now • Restart advisory committees (ones started by DLCD in 2016) • Status of lawsuit that was happening but judge said not ripe

Group 5- Erin 1. Share one word Muddy

Uncertain Finally Encumbrance Inquisitive Expensive Compliance

2. Hopes/Fears Fears • Long process

o Reviewers have tools to do their job? o How to comply? o What does “comply” mean?

• Won’t be able to enforce locally; no enforcement tools or guidance • How BiOp ties into other federal programs (levees, etc.)

o Implications • Competing interests, private property measures 37/49

o How it all will work out • Fear that none of this will happen – as a reviewer • Biological Assessment – right? / wrong? • Who am I to question (BA) as a planner? • Who do I recommend to do assessments? • Can state create list of who to use? Who is qualified? • Threat of bias

Hopes • Clarity • Get enough guidance and tools to actually implement • More clarity • Prescriptive enough to be clear, but flexible enough to work in

varied communities • Guidance document at end of process

o Tailored to regions of the state o Ongoing training provided by FEMA or STARR o ESA certification? (professional cert)

3. Advice • National outreach to give landowners understanding of goals for process (or statewide) – Have FEMA do this

• Coastal/riverine communities have different dynamics • Can’t be one size fits all • If specific guidance, deal with already developed versus new

development (different thresholds for compliance) • Any exemptions to compliance? Non-structural development?

o Watershed groups doing stream work, barriers to them actually doing good work

o Watershed groups versus “wetland” banks – more funds o Stream work exemptions?

• Need a hydraulic engineer, biologist? Need to hire them? • Professional certifications/qualifications • Channel migration – consider Oregon Mapping context (not like

WA!) • Consideration of old channels in CMZ (how far back does hydrology

consider?) • Conflicting information between federal agencies – has to be more

streamlined processes between agencies • DEQ should be involved. Multiple permits. Guidance document can

help clarify this. • State should amend the Model Ordinance • Outreach/education materials from FEMA

o On-site stormwater retention, etc. o Compensatory storage

• Consider regions: urban/rural, different ecosystems • Multiple model ordinances? (for different regions) • Greenway code

Group 6 - Matt 1. Share one word Stalled

Overwhelmed Curious x3 Apprehensive

2. Hopes/Fears Fears • Stall – no meaningful progress • Negative response from landowners, developers • Insufficient mapping support • Impede flood mitigation projects

Hopes • Quick turn around • Meaningful implementation beyond just development • Clear direction on implementation • Good environmental outcomes • Local environmental benefits balanced with impacts on development

and climate change 3. Advice • Analyze impacts on housing affordability

• Consider broader scope of river habitat • Coordinate with “hydromod” process at DEQ

• Clear standards for infrastructure and utilities • Clearly map applicable streams • Good public outreach and education • 1-page handout for permit counter • Consider stormwater detention within SFHA (related to hydromod)

Group 7 - Bryr 1. Share one word Foggy

Optimistic Layered Challenging Quagmire Comfortable Catalytic Quasi-Prescriptive

2. Hopes/Fears Fears • Concerned at mapping – different statewide • Response from development community • Mapping timeline – whether we meet Willamette River and Columbia

River • Legal challenges to implement, how it will play out

o Case law o Planning goals o State law

• Prescriptive outside community resources • Remapping requirements versus levy certification (usage) • Big flood or extinction event before we get on top of it

Hopes • Clear process • Find implementation strategy that fits different size communities • What we’re doing now is consistent with long-term plan • Enough good info that property owners will understand and

embrace • Finally start systematically treating FP function as interconnected. • Flexibility to tailor to available resources

3. Advice • Opportunity for NOAA to influence FP but there needs to be mechanism - for effects outside FP that are ESA-species protective – and for communities to get credit for looking at turns holistically (FP and outside)

• Need strong enforcement mechanisms – every action not taken at stream effects affects downstream community. Flexibility needs to be matched by strong and consistent enforcement

• Recognize that jurisdictions have varied levels of resources – have some support/funding available to use when need it. Flexibility RE: different regulatory structures. Get going on mapping ASAP so we can plan

• Figure out Risk Rating 2.0 – nice if the push back of development caused by higher insurance could in coordination with higher regulatory standards

• Implement strategy of both prescriptive path and discretionary review path – Ex. Maybe reduction in comp ratios in offers additional habitat benefits

• Share and educate development versus insurance impacts to public. Close disconnect between FP development regulators and the actual costs of insurance based on development choices. Community outreach to public on insurance realities of FP development

• Take into consideration excavation and comp storage ratios realities. Requiring it on the same site is difficult and doesn’t always work re: existing habitat quality/function

• Intersection of BiOp with contaminated sites and current industrial use

• Direction on deals with drainage districts that may be isolated from waterbodies of listed species. Does BiOp apply – or only water quality? Guidance needed. Effects downstream from otherwise isolated areas in watershed

Group 8 - Bonnie 1. Share one word Anticipation

Infighting Ponderous Confusion Drawn-out Hopeful Conflicting

2. Hopes/Fears Fears • That this drags on and on and on • Increased community responsibility without resources • More litigation once these are standing • Local political will on how to implement • Laughably bad solutions re economics • Insufficient resources for new maps

Hopes • Community specific options • Stability among stakeholders • Tech support (e.g. mapping) to make it implementable • Focus on avoidance rather than mitigation of flood plain

development • Clarification on community responsibility/liability • Clarity on the interim; what to do now

3. Advice • Mitigation banking for floodplains – needs to discuss function trading?

• In lieu fees • But what about community “stand alone” compliance for mitigation? • Connecting floodplain development and stormwater • System development change! • Climate change – don’t ignore it! • Don’t invent new terms – use existing language of NFIP • Use simple matrix for impacts footprint of development for

projection of floodplain loss over time • As much outreach as possible, as much lead time as possible • Use real mitigation sequence – avoid (1st), but what about

compensation? What, when, where. Mitigate what cannot be avoided (2nd)

• Focus funds – avoidance of mitigation to meaningful locations

• Avoid restrictions that create adverse outcomes

Agency Advice

• Would love not to sue again, something that actually work for communities. Recognize communities/BiOp needs to be implementable

• Take-away those who regulate, this is one small piece, if we don’t understand/community doesn’t it’s hard to implement, need to keep in mind this is one aspect of our work

• DLCD: State regulation on wildfire, could see no development in flood areas/fire areas – work with rural communities – include them.

• “Do the right thing”, fish before people. Regulations that impact people at a local level. Be aware of these communities.

• Federal Agencies: Oregon is in a housing crisis – Efforts for affordable housing; need places to live, must consider this.

• Prioritize funding for local watersheds (OWEB is not enough), look toward watershed councils* • Rural versus urban – keep the rural perspective in mind. • FEMA: Mapping activities FEMA is participating in (RPA) not related to this process (floodplain

management in this – regulatory NFIP implementation) o Offsetting insurance costs, habitat protections

• Defaulting to 100-year floodplain in many areas is not realistic – 10-20-year event closer to waterbody (no fish would survive in some areas too far away from waterbody)

• BiOp was inclusive and took a very long time, continuing to delay puts fish and communities in danger and keeps communities from taking common-sense actions while they wait

• Hard part of planners’ job is synthesizing all the different regulations • Need for inter-agency/organization watershed planning – barriers – resources, political will,

existing builds in floodplain • Provide the tools to address those needs in this process – the slower it goes and longer it takes

increases risks • Grab low-hanging fruit – finding areas that could provide the most benefit while doing the least

harm • What’s one goal of regulation for each position of the FP?

o NMFS: RPA – speaks to special flood hazard area, as currently mapped o NMFS: Floodway – deep/fast water, wetted more regularly, highest amount of danger

for development, highest fish value o FEMA: only has jurisdiction in 1% floodplain

• Community “comply” with intent of BiOp • Hydromod – detention within floodplain or not? DEQ, PDX?