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