Dec 12, 2025 | AOC News, Natural Resources
Approximately 40 county commissioners, judges, and supervisors from across the nation met in Wasco, Sherman, and Gilliam counties for the first Rural Energy Academy Peer Exchange in early December. Hosted by the National Association of Counties (NACo) and Mana Consulting Group, the peer exchange is designed for county leaders to learn about renewable energy projects and gather the necessary information needed to make educated decisions around renewables in their respective counties. The Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) members in attendance included Sherman County Judge Joe Dabulskis, Crook County Commissioner Susan Hermreck, Gilliam County Judge Cris Patnode, and Wasco County Commissioner Phil Brady.
Program participants first visited Pachwáywit Fields, the largest operating solar project in Oregon. County leaders not only saw the massive footprint of the solar site but learned how large-scale solar projects are integrated and managed with stewardship practices like seasonal grazing of sheep.
Next, the group traveled to Leaning Juniper II Wind Farm where Avangrid presented a technical overview of their wind projects in the region. Avangrid covered the early project development, operations and decommissioning, and repowering practices. Attendees were able to ask questions not only to the developers but also to local Oregon officials in Wasco, Gilliam and Sherman counties on how renewable projects benefit their counties.
The tour continued at Avangrid’s National Training Facility where attendees got an up-close view of tools, equipment, and the training environment used in utility-scale wind and solar operations. The day concluded with a panel discussion featuring regional county leaders and advocates. Panelists shared practical insights from their work with local governments, highlighted considerations that strengthen the county voice during major project discussions, and discussed lessons learned for the region. The panel included Sherman County Judge Joe Dabulskis, former Community Renewable Energy Association (CREA) Executive Director Mike McArthur, and AOC Legislative Affairs Manager Branden Pursinger.
The peer exchange wrapped up with a discussion on ways to support regional energy workforce and data centers.
“It was an honor that NACo chose Sherman County as the first location to launch their energy peer exchange,” said Judge Dabulskis. “It was very educational; I feel I learned as much as anybody that attended and more than anything the networking with peers around the country was priceless.”
Conversations have already begun on how to bring this peer exchange to more county elected officials and how to tailor the conversations to be state specific.
Contributed by: Legislative Affairs Manager Branden Pursinger
Sep 26, 2025 | AOC Advocacy, Natural Resources
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is analyzing potential changes to how the National Flood Insurance Program is administered in Oregon. The deadline to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and FEMA’s implementation plan of the new National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Biological Opinion is Oct. 6, 2025. 
According to FEMA, the purpose of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is “to minimize the long-term risks to lives and property from the effects of flooding, while reducing costs of flood damages to taxpayers.” If a community chooses to participate in the NFIP, they are required to adopt and enforce regulations that meet the minimum standards of floodplain management.
The updates under consideration outline a “No Net Loss” standard which communities within the Oregon plan area would need to implement for continued participation in the NFIP. The new “No Net Loss” standard requires any adverse impacts to be avoided or offset through mitigation so “there is no net change in the habitat function from the authorized existing condition.” This standard would apply to development that occurs in an Oregon NFIP-participating community within the plan area; in the special flood hazard area (SFHA); or meets FEMA’s new definition of development:
[a]ny man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials. Note that the term ‘development’ for the NFIP is not restricted to a building with walls and a roof. It includes any disturbance (permanent or temporary) of the ground, which may include structures with walls, but would also include development such as a new or expanded culvert, road, or driveway. [1]
The DEIS has identified the following activities as potentially harmful, which would trigger the new ‘no net loss’ standard:
- Placement of fill, structures, and/or facilities that occupy space
- Adding surfaces like pavement or roofs, that prevent water from absorbing into the soil
- Removal of trees over 6 inches in diameter at breast height or larger near rivers, streams, and other bodies of water
The Draft EIS presents three potential alternatives that could be selected: Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative – status quo in Oregon; Alternative 2 calls for a “no net loss except for project specific Endangered Species Act Compliance”; and Alternative 3 calls for the No Net Loss standard for all projects.
A coalition known as Oregonians for Floodplain Protection has been actively pursuing both litigation to stop the Biological Opinion from moving forward as well as seeking additional public comment during this time. A framework letter template for submission to FEMA by Oct. 6 is linked below. County planning departments have been receiving regular updates on what the potential impacts of Alternative 2 and 3 would have on their ability to issue land use permits and approve any future development. Per direction from the AOC Board of Directors, AOC has been working with county planning departments for technical feedback and coordinating with Oregonians for Floodplain Protection to submit a comment letter urging adoption of Alternative 1.
Resources for submitting public comments by Oct. 6
FEMA Framework Letter Template
Oregonians for Floodplain Protection presentation slides
Contributed by: Branden Pursinger | Legislative Affairs Manager
[1] National Flood Insurance Program DEIS Executive Summary, p.ES-4
Aug 28, 2025 | AOC Advocacy, Natural Resources
The largest, most extensive program at the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) is the Fire Protection Division, which provides wildfire protection on approximately 16 million acres of private and publicly owned lands. Every county but one (Sherman) has at least a portion of their land within an ODF Fire Protection District, and to help establish where those protection districts are located, Oregon’s counties play a critical role. However, by 2026, 33 of Oregon’s 36 counties will no longer have timely classifications on file.
Oregon forestland classification is the statutorily mandated process by which a county-convened committee studies the lands within their jurisdiction to determine which parcels are “forestlands” for the purposes of wildfire protection.
Landowners within an ODF district who are receiving wildland fire protection pay the forest patrol assessment. When the forestland classification process is conducted on a regular basis, it improves the accuracy and equity of the forest patrol assessments. Aiming to ensure the appropriate acres are being assessed at the appropriate rates for wildland fire protection, counties are expected to complete this process every five years. This timeframe was adopted by the Board of Forestry in 2010 to ensure changes in land use, vegetation, mapping technology improvements, and any errors from previous attempts are factored in, corrected, and accounted for.
Set to occur every five years, the forestland classification committee is composed of six individuals, which includes a representative from OSU Extension, Oregon State Fire Marshal, and ODF, as well as three individuals who reside within the county and are appointed by the county commissioners/county court. The county-appointed individuals must include an owner of forestland and (if present within the county) an owner of grazing land.
Forest landowners are required by law to provide protection from fire for their lands. However, instead of landowners having their own firefighting force, most private landowners use ODF or a local fire protective association to protect their lands. To fund this service, they pay the forest patrol assessment.
Counties can review when the last classification process occurred for their area and begin the process of meeting with the local ODF district staff to begin this classification process. ODF and the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) will partner together this winter, following the conclusion of fire season, to strategize a plan to ensure all counties into compliance with the five-year cycle. More information regarding the forest land classification process can be found here.
As the citizens of Oregon continue to see assessments increase for a variety of reasons, the forestland classification process helps reduce the amount landowners pay for fire protection. If more lands are included through the classification process, the rate per acre paid by the landowner is reduced due to the total cost in that district being spread across more protected acres.
Photo credit: Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives
Contributed by: Branden Pursinger | Legislative Affairs Manager
Mar 31, 2025 | AOC Advocacy, Natural Resources
Senate Bill 777, introduced this legislative session to change the methodology used to determine wolf attack loss grants, easily passed the Senate on Tuesday, March 25, and now heads to the House for consideration.
The bill removes the “missing” category from the types of depredations eligible for compensation and places a multiplier on depredation that occurs based on the type of animal impacted and the recommendation of the county advisory committee. It also increases the amount of grant program funds that must be put toward non-lethal deterrents from 30% to 50%.
Although similar bills have been introduced in prior sessions, the Association of Oregon Counties took the lead this session in working with the Oregon Cattleman’s Association and impacted Oregon counties and provided testimony on the program to articulate why, from an administrative standpoint, the bill was necessary. Although many ranchers in south-central and eastern Oregon participate in the program, there are some counties that see less than 10% of their entire ranching population participate. The changes from SB 777 are expected to encourage more participation in the program, ensuring that more deterrents are on the landscape and that ranchers will be justly compensated.
The Wolf Depredation Compensation and Financial Assistance Grant Program was established as a complementary and necessary program for the full implementation of Oregon’s Wolf Plan, when the Legislature unanimously passed House Bill 3560 in 2011. HB 3560 stipulated grant money would be made available to assist counties in compensating those who suffer loss, injury, or missing livestock due to the presence of wolves in their area. The bill also allocated financial assistance to counties that implement livestock management or nonlethal wolf control techniques. These methods could include, but are not limited to, range riders, spotlighting, pasture monitoring, fox lights, air cannons, non-lethal projectiles, carcass removal and drones with thermal optics, to name a few. HB 3560 also required counties to allocate a minimum of 30% of the funds they request to livestock management or nonlethal deterrents.
To participate in the program, counties were required to establish a county wolf depredation committee. The makeup of a county committee, per ORS 610.150, includes one sitting county commissioner, two livestock owners, two wolf conservationists, and two members of the business community (agreed upon by the other members). In 2012, only eight counties were eligible for funding; however today 18 of Oregon’s 36 counties have established wolf depredation committees.
With the Senate vote of SB 777, this is the first major change to the wolf depredation program in over 10 years.
Contributed by: Branden Pursinger | Legislative Affairs Manager
Dec 17, 2024 | AOC Advocacy, Natural Resources
The 82nd Legislative Assembly officially convened for a special session on wildfire funding on Dec. 12, called by Gov. Kotek on Nov. 26, to allocate roughly $218 million to the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and the Oregon State Fire Marshal (OSFM) to cover all pending expenses and outstanding bills from the 2024 wildfire season. By 3 p.m., the sole funding bill, Senate Bill 5801, had passed out of the Joint Special Session Committee on Wildfire Funding and was headed to the Senate and House for final passage. SB 5801 passed the Senate 25-2 and the House 41-2. By noon on Friday, Dec.13, the bill was signed by Gov. Kotek and the funds were being directed to ODF and OSFM.
The Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) testified in support of SB 5801. Without the passage of SB 5801 and the necessary finances to cover these costs, Oregon would have run the risk of not having the workforce or the vendors to fight fires during future wildfire seasons. The $191.5 million allocated to ODF will be used to pay 2024 gross large fire costs and ensure the agency is able to distribute roughly $17 million in timber sales revenue to counties and local taxing districts in 2024. The $26.6 million allocated to OSFM addresses cash flow concerns and reconciles the state’s obligations from this past fire season.
“This special session was an opportunity to receive funding for the 2024 wildfire season, however it was much more,” said Oregon State Fire Marshal Mariana Ruiz-Temple. “It sparked the conversation from partners and our legislators that Oregon needs a modernized wildfire funding methodology ─ one that focuses on the prevention and mitigation on the front end and adequate suppression. I am hopeful that as we move into session this work will continue to gain momentum and finally find solutions that meet the wildfire crisis and the conditions on the ground where they are at. Thank you to all our partners for their support.”
Between 2010 and 2019, the 10-year average of acres burned increased from 100,000 acres to roughly 500,000 acres annually. In 2020, over 1 million acres were burned and in 2024 that number reached 2 million acres. Since 2010, the total area in Oregon that has burned is equivalent to the combined land mass of Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Oregon’s gross wildfire costs averaged around $11 million per year from 2002 to 2012. From 2014 to 2024 these costs surged to an average of $75.5 million annually. The 2020 and 2021 calendar years exceeded $120 million, and the wildfire response costs alone in October of 2024 were $250 million and were continuing to climb. The full financial impact of the 2024 wildfires on the state is $352 million ─ $212 million higher than the previous record set in the 2020 Labor Day fires. However, the complete financial impact, when costs to local governments are fully factored, is not yet known but is expected to total well over half a billion dollars.
AOC will continue to advocate in the 2025 session for a long-term funding mechanism to support state and local government wildfire mitigation and response efforts.
Contributed by: Branden Pursinger | Legislative Affairs Manager
Aug 25, 2024 | AOC News, Natural Resources
After years of action by Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) to delay the implementation of the new National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Biological Opinion (BiOp), which would make significant changes to the implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a letter was sent to impacted jurisdictions in mid-July.
That letter stated local jurisdictions within the NFIP would be required to have in place “Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures (PICM)” no later than Dec. 1, 2024. The purpose of these PICMs according to FEMA were to “ensure the continued existence of threatened or endangered species in compliance with the Endangered Species Act.”
NFIP participating communities in Oregon must select one of the PICM pathways laid out by FEMA:
- Adopt a model ordinance that considers impacts to species and their habitat and requires mitigation to a no net loss standard.
- Choose to require a habitat assessment and mitigation plan for development on a permit-by-permit basis.
- Put in place a prohibition on floodplain development in the Special Flood Hazard Area.
These PICMs must be in place until the release of the Final Implementation Plan and implementation in 2027. If an impacted jurisdiction does not pick a PICM pathway by the Dec. 1 deadline and notify FEMA of their selection, they will default to a permit-by-permit basis (Option 2).
FEMA defines “development” in their model ordinances as “any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials.”
FEMA’s draft guidance states the following actions are not required to have a habitat assessment or a new floodplain permit issued, as these activities, according to FEMA, do not meet the NFIP definition of “development.” However, any other applicable federal, state, or local requirements still must be met. If the activity is not one of the exemptions listed below, a new floodplain permit and/or habitat assessment will be required before a project can begin.
- Routine maintenance of existing landscaping that does not involve grading, excavation, or filling.
- Removal of noxious weeds, hazard trees, and replacement of non-native vegetation with native vegetation.
- Normal maintenance of above and below ground utilities and facilities (e.g. replacing power lines and utility poles.
- Normal road maintenance, but not including the expansion of the road system. (e.g. filling potholes, repaving, installing signs and traffic signals).
- Normal maintenance of a levee or flood control facility. Normal maintenance does not include repair from flood damage, expansion, or addition of material.
- Plowing and other normal farm practices on legally existing agricultural areas. Any new structure / filling, or the addition of land by way of clearing will likely require both a development permit and a habitat assessment.
FEMA’s draft guidance also states the following actions are required to have a permit but not a habitat assessment.
- Normal maintenance, repairs or remodeling of structures provided such work does not constitute a substantial improvement or repair of substantial damage. To comply, the cost of such work must be less than 50% of market value of the structure.
- Activities with the sole purpose of creating, restoring, or enhancing natural functions associated with floodplains, streams, lakes, estuaries, marine areas, habitat and riparian areas – provided these activities do not include structures, grading, fill, or impervious surfaces.
- Development of open space and recreational facilities (parks, trails, etc.) provided they do not include structures, fill, or the removal of more than 5% native vegetation.
- Repair to onsite septic systems, provided the ground disturbance is the minimal necessary and best management practices are followed to prevent stormwater and soil erosion.
- Projects that have already received concurrence under another ESA following permit (e.g. US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit).
- Repair of an existing, functional bulkhead in the same location and footprint with the same materials when the Ordinary High-Water Mark is still outside of the face of the bulkhead.
As outlined in the guidance document for review of development on a permit by permit basis with accompanying habitat assessment, site visits as well as documentation of fill/removal activities must be documented and reported by the local planning authority.
AOC staff, as well as county planning directors, commissioners, and impacted parties from across the state have been meeting with agency heads and the governor’s office regarding these new requirements and the new processes local jurisdictions will have to follow.
The model ordinance that has been released can be found here.
The Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation regional guidance for Oregon can be found here.
Contributed by: Branden Pursinger | Legislative Affairs Manager
