Oct 1, 2026 | Natural Resources
In September, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) received the first of three federal approvals needed to manage state forests under the new Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries) issued the incidental take permit (ITP) for regulatory certainty under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for 10 specific covered fish species. The remaining two approvals (one for the remaining five terrestrial species and the final HCP approval) are anticipated by early 2027.
The 745,000 acres of Oregon’s state forests are required to be managed for social, economic, and environmental benefits – this is known as Greatest Permanent Value (ORS 530.050 as well as OAR 629-035-0020). ODF believes the protections found in the HCP’s management plan with the newly issued ITP will benefit fish through improved habitat over the long term while also allowing for harvesting to occur outside of the set aside habitat areas.
For eight years, ODF has been working on an HCP for long-term management of the Western Oregon state forests and 15 threatened or endangered species under the ESA. The Board of Forestry submitted the final plan to the federal government for approval in March of 2024. Since that time, ODF has been working to update the Forest Management Plan (FMP) to be in line with this HCP, assuming approval would occur.
The 10 fish covered by this ITP issuance include Oregon Coast Chinook and Coho, Lower Columbia River Chinook and Coho, Columbia River Chum, Upper Willamette River Spring-run Chinook, Upper Willamette River Winter Steelhead, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Choo and Chinook, and the Eulachon (a species of smelt found in Oregon).
ODF anticipates the second ITP issuance later this fall or early 2027. This ITP will include the Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, Oregon Slender Salamander, Coastal Marten and the Red Tree Vole.
The purpose of an ITP is to allow the landowner, in this case ODF, the legal protections from potential legal ramifications for the covered species if the forest management activities cause ‘take’ of the species. Without an ITP, the landowner would be required to follow a take avoidance management style. Take avoidance is the practice of designing or implementing a management activity in a way that completely prevents any prohibited “take” of an endangered or threatened species. It is worth noting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued an internal memorandum with a new interpretation of “take” under the ESA. This new interpretation states the agency will “no longer consider the incidental killing or injuring of a threatened or endangered animal to be illegal.” Going forward, the law will only prohibit actions that are intentionally and purposefully designed to kill or injure a listed species. A coalition of 21 attorneys general and multiple environmental organizations have filed suit over this change to the ESA “Harm Rule.” If the lawsuit fails, it is unclear whether the ITP and HCP will still be necessary in its current version.
Contributed by: Branden Pursinger | Legislative Affairs Manager
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
