FEMA and Environmental groups reach settlement over So Cal endangered species

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. -- A coalition of environmental groups reached a settlement agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, on Tuesday.

California's recall election overshadowed the announcement.

The dispute began in February 2020. The environmental coalition (which includes the San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, the Ecological Rights Foundation, Our Children’s Earth Foundation, San Diego Coastkeeper and Orange County Coastkeeper) filed a lawsuit against FEMA alleging the federal agency had violated requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with wildlife agencies to ensure the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, did not jeopardize or destroy endangered species habitat.

Under the settlement agreement, FEMA will expedite its endangered species review of the NFIP’s effect on all endangered species in California:

• Within 36 months, FEMA will complete its Biological Evaluation of the potential effects of FEMA’s administration of the NFIP on two species of anadromous fish within the Six Counties: South-Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Southern California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
• Within 30 days of the completion of this Biological Evaluation, FEMA will submit a written request to the National Marine Fisheries Service , or NMFS, for initiation of informal or formal ESA consultation as necessary. 
• In addition, within 60 months, FEMA will complete a Biological Evaluation of the potential effects of FEMA’s administration of the NFIP on all remaining ESA-listed species throughout California that may be affected by those activities.
• Within 30 days of the completion of this additional Biological Evaluation, FEMA will submit a written request to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or USFWS, for initiation of informal or formal ESA consultation as necessary. 

According to the coalition, FEMA's previous policies incentivized infilling of critically endangered species' habitats.

Members of the coalition said landowners who wanted to build on flood plains were required to purchase flood insurance. However, the coalition found that landowners were able to apply for insurance exemptions by petitioning FEMA for revisions of the official flood plain maps.

Landowners were also able to petition to move property out of the floodplain by proposing to add layers of fill to the land to artificially raise a property's elevation. In some cases, filling the land destroyed habitats of critically endangered species.

The coalition says FEMA has not been required to consider the impacts that its Flood Insurance Program has on endangered species.

In Santa Barbara County alone, FEMA has implemented at least 528 revisions to the 100-year floodplain maps.

Given the substantial overlap between the 100-year floodplain and designated critical habitat for endangered species, the six organizations alleged in their lawsuit that a substantial number of map revisions occurred within areas throughout California designated as critical habitat for ESA-listed species and "therefore, have adversely impacted those species or critical habitats."

The coalition requested FEMA conduct a Biological Evaluation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a new process that accounts for endangered species.

With the new review effort, the coalition hopes that NMFS and USFWS will impose new species protective measures on the NFIP, a program that has had the federal government subsidizing the destruction of endangered species habitat with little oversight or review.

To provide interim protections for endangered species while these activities are taking place, FEMA has further agreed that it will not issue any Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (“LOMR-F”) or Conditional Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (“CLOMR-F”) in the Six Counties until the earlier of the initiation of the ESA section 7 consultations has occurred (and FEMA has developed interim protective measures under ESA section 7(d)), or five years have elapsed. Notably, LOMR-Fs and CLOMR-Fs are two of the biggest NFIP-related actions that are likely to adversely impact endangered species.

The settlement agreement also requires FEMA to provide informational updates to facilitate their oversight of FEMA’s compliance with this agreement.