April 14, 2025 YOR
CITY OF WOODBURN FRANKLOUNCILO WARD
LILIA BRIZUELA,COUNCILOR WARD 1
MARK WILK,COUNCILOR WARD II
CITY COUNCIL AMENDED JEN CANTU,COUNCILOR WARD III
SHARON SCHAUB,COUNCILOR WARD IV
MARY BETH CORNWELL,COUNCILOR WARD V
AGENDA ALMA GRIJALVA,COUNCILOR WARD VI
APRIL 14, 2025 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS-270 MONTGOMERY STREET
1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
Announcements:
None.
Appointments:
None.
4. COMMUNITY/GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS
None.
5. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
Proclamations:
None.
Presentations:
A. Woodburn Art Scholarship
B. Park SDC Update
6. COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - This allows the public to introduce items for Council
consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.
8. CONSENT AGENDA -Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine
and may be adopted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion
at the request of a Council member.
This facility is ADA accessible. If you need special accommodation, please contact the City Recorder at 503-980-
6318 at least 24 hours prior to this meeting.
**Habrd int6rpretes disponibles para aquellas personas que no hablan Ingl6s, previo acuerdo.
Comunfquese al (503) 980-2485.**
April 14, 2025 Council Agenda Page i
A. Woodburn City Council minutes of March 24, 2025 1
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes.
B. Traffic Enforcement Report for January- March 2025 5
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
C. Building Activity for March 2025 6
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
D. City Council FY 2025/26 Goals
Recommended Action: Approve the proposed FY 2025/26 City
Council goals as established during the City Council's February 21-
22, 2025, Special Meeting.
9. TABLED BUSINESS
None.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
11. GENERAL BUSINESS - Members of the public wishing to comment on items of
general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City Recorder
prior to commencing this portion of the Council's agenda. Comment time may
be limited by Mayoral prerogative.
A. Council Bill No. 3277 - A Resolution Initiating Consideration of 7
Proposed Legislative Amendments to the Woodburn Flood Plain
Management Ordinance and Woodburn Development Ordinance
(WDO)
Recommended Action:Adopt the attached Resolution initiating the
legislative amendment process for amending the Woodburn
Development Ordinance and the Woodburn Flood Plain
Management Ordinance.
B. Award a Contract for Professional Audit Services to Aldrich CPAs + 40
Advisors LLP.
Recommended Action: Award a Contract for Professional Audit
Services to Aldrich CPAs + Advisors LLP for an amount not to exceed
$416,240.00 over a three (3) year period with the option for three (3)
one year contract extensions, and authorize the City Administrator
to sign the Agreement.
April 14, 2025 Council Agenda Page ii
12. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS - These are
Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that may be called up
by the City Council.
A. Council Briefing of Planning Commission approval of a Design 42
Review application for "Checkpoint 211 Food Cart Pod" at 2010
Molalla Road (Tax Lot 051 W08DA00400)
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council take
no action on this item and provides this summary pursuant to
Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) Section 4.02.02. The
Council may call up this item if desired and, by majority vote, initiate
a review of the Planning Commission decision.
13. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
14. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
16. ADJOURNMENT
April 14, 2025 Council Agenda Page iii
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2025
DATE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF
MARION, STATE OF OREGON, MARCH 24, 2025
CONVENED The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Lonergan presiding.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Lonergan Present
Councilor Cantu Present
Councilor Cornwell Present
Councilor Schaub Present—via video conferencing
Councilor Brizuela Absent
Councilor Grijalva Absent
Councilor Wilk Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Granum, Assistant City Administrator
Row, Economic Development Director Johnk, Special Projects Director Wakely, Police Chief
Millican, Community Services Director Cuomo, Public Affairs and Communications Manager
Guerrero, Finance Director Turley, Public Works Director Stultz, Lieutenant Shadrin, Lieutenant
Kimberlin, Community Relations Manager Herrera, Events and Special Programs Manager Tierney,
Community Outreach and Education Coordinator Uder, Administrative Specialist Maxwell, City
Recorder Pierson
MOMENT OF REFLECTION
Mayor Lonergan announced that it is spring break this week and asked everyone to drive safely as there
will be a lot of kids out on the road.
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Lonergan read a proclamation declaring April 2025 as Child Abuse Prevention Month.
Peter Carrillo,with Liberty House provided information on their role in preventing child abuse and the
education and resources they have available for anyone in the community. Sid Venkatachalam with
Marion County Youth and Family Services,provided information about the services they provide that
aid and assist in preventing and healing from child abuse.
PRESENTATIONS
Achievement Medal — Police Chief Millican awarded Corporal Jake Stout the Woodburn Police
Department's Achievement Medal for his exceptional work alongside his canine partner Axel in
responding to a child abduction. He noted that their efforts played a key role in the successful resolution
of a high-stakes situation involving an armed and dangerous individual and Corporal Stouts actions
were instrumental in bringing the incident to a successful conclusion.
Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 24, 2025
1
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2025
Oregon Festival and Events Association Ovation! Awards —Impact Award for Fiesta Mexicana
—Mayor Lonergan stated that the Oregon Festival and Events Association(OFEA) supports over 1,200
festivals and events in Oregon. Recently, the Woodburn Fiesta Mexicana received the ORPA Impact
Award for its significant cultural and financial impact,particularly in celebrating specific cultures and
heritages. Mayor Lonergan recognized Emily Tierney, Yanira Herrera, Zoraya Uder, Kaylah Maxwell
and Jesse Cuomo for all their hard work and dedication to make the Fiesta Mexicana so successful.
Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Government's 2024 Regional Cooperative Project Award—
North Marion Business Service Alliance — Mayor Lonergan announced that the North Marion
Business Alliance was awarded the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments 2024 Regional
Cooperative Project Award. Special recognition was given to Jamie Johnk, Kaylah Maxwell, Jamie
Zamrin, and Jim Row for their contributions to the program's success.
Chemeketa Bond Measure Presentation - Chemeketa District President Jessica Howard provided
information on the Chemeketa Career and Technical Education Bond Measure.
Motion: Wilk/Cantu... support Chemeketa's Bond Measure.
The Motion passed with the following vote: Councilors Schaub, Cornwell, Wilk, and Cantu voting
"aye." [4-0]
Use of Force Report—Police Chief Millican presented information on the Police Department's 2024
Use of Force Report.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Woodburn City Council minutes of February 24, 2025,
B. Woodburn City Council Goal Setting minutes of February 21-22, 2025,
C. Traffic Enforcement Report for December 2024 through February 2025,
D. Liquor License Application for Sophia's Cafe,
E. Liquor License Application Los Dos Compas En Casa Marquez LLC.,
F. Building Activity for February 2025,
G. Acceptance of Public Utility Easements at 2115 Molalla Road (Tax Lots 051 W09B001100
&1200),
H. Monthly Financial Report(January and February).
Motion: Wilk/Cornwell... approve the consent agenda as presented.
The Motion passed with the following vote: Councilors Schaub, Cornwell, Wilk, and Cantu voting
"aye." [4-0]
COUNCIL BILL NO. 3264 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT
2024-01 (LA-24-01) FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT TO
INCORPORATE PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED URBAN RESERVE AREA (URA)
Wilk introduced Council Bill No. 3264. Mayor Lonergan asked for the second reading of the
Ordinance. City Recorder Pierson read the bill by title only since there were no objections from
Council. Special Projects Director Wakely provided a staff report. On roll call vote for final passage,
Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 24, 2025
2
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2025
the bill passed unanimously with Councilors Cornwell, Wilk, Cantu, and Schaub voting "aye." [4-0].
Mayor Lonergan declared Council Bill No. 3264 duly passed.
COUNCIL BILL NO. 3275 -A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF WOODBURN
STAFF TO APPLY FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT FROM THE OREGON PARKS
AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOR REHABILITATION OF SETTLEMIER PARK,
AND DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN THE
APPLICATION
Wilk introduced Council Bill No. 3275. City Recorder Pierson read the bill by title only since there
were no objections from Council. Community Services Director Cuomo provided a staff report. On
roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously with Councilors Cornwell, Wilk, Cantu,
and Schaub voting "aye." [4-0]. Mayor Lonergan declared Council Bill No. 3275 duly passed.
COUNCIL BILL NO.3276—A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF WOODBURN
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
Wilk introduced Council Bill No. 3276. City Recorder Pierson read the bill by title only since there
were no objections from Council. City Attorney Granum provided a staff report. On roll call vote for
final passage, the bill passed unanimously with Councilors Cornwell, Wilk, Cantu, and Schaub voting
"aye." [4-0]. Mayor Lonergan declared Council Bill No. 3276 duly passed.
2025 OREGON MAIN STREET REVITALIZATION GRANT HISTORIC PROPERTY
RESTORATION PROJECT—397 N. FIRST STREET
Economic Development Director Johnk provided a staff report.
Motion: Wilk/Cantu... acknowledge the submission of the 2025 Oregon Main Street Revitalization
Grant of $300,000 for the Historic Property Restoration Project located at 397 N. First Street and
authorize the City Administrator to sign the Grant Agreement, if funded.
The Motion passed with the following vote: Councilors Schaub, Cornwell, Wilk, and Cantu voting
"aye." [4-0]
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR CONTRACT FOR
THE WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
Assistant City Administrator Row provided a staff report.
Motion: Wilk/Cornwell... award a Construction Manager/General Contractor contract for the
Woodburn Community Center Project to Triplett Wellman in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for
preconstruction services and authorizing staff to negotiate a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for
construction services within the current estimated construction budget for the project($16,000,000).
The Motion passed with the following vote: Councilors Schaub, Cornwell, Wilk, and Cantu voting
"aye." [4-0]
Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 24, 2025
3
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2025
COUNCIL BRIEFING OF STAFF APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION TO THE
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE (SUB 21-01 & VAR 22-02)
DEVELOPMENT DECISION FOR 913 & 959 HARDCASTLE AVENUE (EXT 25-01)
The Council declined to call this item up.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
The City Administrator reported the following:
• Working on the City's budget this past week, today and later this week.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilor Cantu stated that she attended the DSA Awards and thanked others who attended.
Councilor Wilk stated the meeting tonight exemplifies a great reason to be in Woodburn and added
that we did a lot this evening and the City is clearly a City on the move.
Councilor Cornwell asked if there were any train updates.
City Administrator Derickson answered that they have not heard back from Union Pacific but the City
is planning to move forward with various fencing and improvements we've discussed on City owned
property in the areas we identified.
Mayor Lonergan thanked the City for allowing a few people to attend the National League of Cities
conference in Washington D.C. He added that they met with Representative Salinas and she was very
receptive and thinks highly of Woodburn and is up to speed on what is going on around here.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Cornwell/Cantu... move to adjourn.
The Motion passed with the following vote: Councilors Schaub, Cornwell, Wilk, and Cantu voting
"aye." [4-0]
Mayor Lonergan adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m.
APPROVED
FRANK LONERGAN, MAYOR
ATTEST
Heather Pierson, City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 24, 2025
4
:E
0
Ln CU Ln CU
W O's Ln rq Ln N111�11111 r4 W (7) 0 c)
R To m o 0 N 0 N N 0 N
CU M N rq Ln w r4 Ln M00
(N CU (N 4�
u u
0 Ln Ln z 0
.
N N iz
0 0 0 Qj
N N Q
CF) r14 T-4 ry)fn (N r- -i
0 NW* r- 0 * Q
u Lr)
M r14 m u r4
m m
4-J sz
iz
N
Ln + r4 Ln u 4
(N N
Ln m Ln r14 00
N CL N
i!l m
c CY) o 00 Ln
T-4 0 r-I ry) Ln E 0`0 r4 Ln r� c 00
m rq r4ci
u U. U.
0 Qj - 0
z uj 3
+j � 4
u E�4 QJ 'Z
4-J N Ln N
0 Lna Qj
0 N N LW
N uj
CL -zt Lr)
-i Ln �t -i M00 at
m M -i Nm N3
m
4-J
o 13) 8
"3
4- U 4' U
C: c
co
cu cu
co > m m
LU
o � 0 � � cu
z
LU 0 0 cu Z 0 0
U u u u u u
0 o o "
4-J CL
z CL
o
0 C
41 D 41 D
CL CL �t
m lu
zi Ts
41 Gj = 41 Gj = w c 13)
0 r_ 2
w cz
L M M LU 41 m lu
41
0 & 0 &
13
F- m F-
41 41
0 0
F- F-
0
t
CITY OF WOODB URN
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503)982-5246
Date: April 4, 2025
To: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director
From: Melissa Gitt, Building Official
Subject: Building Activity for March 2025
2023 2024 2025
No. Dollar Amount No. Dollar Amount No. Dollar Amount
Single-Family Residential 1 $303,655 22 $7,594,504 36 $12,315,614
Multi-Family Residential 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Assisted Living Facilities 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Residential Adds & Alts 27 $390,846 11 $117,717 12 $152,324
Industrial 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Commercial 5 $635,954 7 $559,472 2 $141,500
Signs and Fences 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Manufactured Homes 0 $0 1 $290,000 0 $0
TOTALS 33 $1,330,455 41 $8,561,693 50 $12,609,438
Fiscal Year to Date $82,706,047 $92,351,412 $156,722,056
Jul 1 —June 30
*Totals Reflect Penuit Valuation
I:ACormnunity Development\Building\BuildingActivity\B1dgAct-2025-3March.doc
6
�i �.. Ag4,-.44 fun.-
WboibBURN
In orarn reA 188
April 14, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Derickson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: City Council FY 2025/26 Goals
RECOMMENDATION:
Via a motion, approve the proposed FY 2025/26 City Council goals as
established during the City Council's February 21-22, 2025, Special Meeting.
BACKGROUND:
During the Special Meeting, the City Council developed a set of prioritized goals
for 2025/26. It was also determined the goal list, while certainly not all inclusive
of all of the City Council's desires for the community, would focus on a
reasonable number of goals the City Council felt were important and could be
accomplished within the next 24 months. Goals Included:
Goals
• Develop and implement a strategy to improve traffic safety and reduce
neighborhood speeding.
• Improve rail safety.
• Initiate the Young Street affordable housing project.
• Update the City Charter.
DISCUSSION:
The Council also discussed informal projects such as naming the dog park,
develop a community outreach plan and partnerships to keep services in place
(to the greatest extent possible) during the Community Center/Aquatic Center
construction project and to reinstate the summer hanging basket program and
continued efforts to partner with the School District.
Now that the City Council has reached consensus on the 2025/26 goals,
officially adopting those goals is the next step in the implementation process.
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x_ City Attorney_x_ Finance_x_
7
Honorable Mayor and City Council
April 14, 2025
Page 2
Proposed 2025/26 City Council goals are being presented for council
deliberation and approval.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact, if any, associated with the implementation of these goals is
unknown at this time. Staff will work diligently to utilize existing resources,
partnerships and grant programs whenever possible for achieving City Council
goals in the upcoming year.
8
WWODBURN
Ig �e� Item
Inc orpornreA 1889
April 14, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director
Dago Garcia, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Initiate Amendments of the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO)
and the City's Floodplain Management Ordinance necessary for
conformance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) - Endangered Species
Act (ESA) Integration in Oregon (LA 2025-01)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached Resolution initiating the legislative amendment process for
amending the Woodburn Development Ordinance and the Woodburn Flood Plain
Management Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) mission is to help people
before, during, and after disasters. The National Floor Insurance Program (NFIP) was
created by the U.S. Congress in 1968 to help minimize the costs of disaster relief and
reduce the loss of life and property caused by flooding. NFIP-participating
communities (which includes Woodburn) are then required to maintain state and
local floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damage. The
regulations include construction methods and details that must be followed when
constructing within flood management areas, and they control the alteration of the
floodplain so as not to increase flood damage risk. As a result of the City
participating in the NFIP, property owners within the City limits are eligible to
purchase federally backed flood insurance policies.
As a federal agency, FEMA must also consider whether NFIP activities affect
threatened and endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
In 2009, FEMA was sued by several environmental groups in Oregon for failing to
adequately consider the effects of the NFIP on ESA listed species and their habitat
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x_ City Attorney x_ Finance_x_
9
Honorable Mayor and City Council
April 14, 2025
Page 2
in Oregon. In 2010, FEMA settled; agreed to consult regarding the effects of the NFIP
in Oregon on threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat.
In April 2016, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued the Oregon NFIP Biological
Opinion (BiOp). The BiOp concluded FEMA's implementation of the NFIP in Oregon
jeopardizes the continued existence of threatened and endangered species and
adversely modifies designated critical habitat. Subsequently, FEMA has been
evaluating proposed changes to the NFIP through an environmental impact
statement (EIS), in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Final Implementation Plan for the proposed changes is anticipated by 2026
following the Record of Decision in the EIS process, then FEMA will fully implement
the plan in 2027. Until then, communities have been directed by FEMA to begin
taking action to protect habitat and achieve what is called "no net loss."
Since last fall, FEMA has offered certain workshops and assistance for local
communities to learn more in order to implement interim measures, called Pre-
Implementation Compliance Measures (PICMs).
NFIP Communities have been directed to select one of the following three PICMs:
1 ) Prohibit all new development in the floodplain.
2) Incorporate the ESA into local floodplain ordinances (based on a model
ordinance developed by FEMA).
3) Require permit applicants to develop a Floodplain Habitat Assessment
documenting that their proposed development in the Special Flood Hazard Area
will achieve "no net loss."
Option #1 is draconian and unrealistic due the severe impacts on property owners
in the city. Option #2 (adoption of the PICM model floodplain ordinance) by a
community is intended to ensure that development meets ESA compliance as
performance standards are built into the code. Option #3, a/k/a "Permit-by-Permit"
approach would require each individual development application to analyze
potential loss to floodplain functions and propose mitigation that abides by the
mitigation requirements outlined in the habitat assessment guide and ensures no net
loss of the impacted functions.
Communities must report to FEMA on their implementation of interim measures.
Based on FEMA's timeframe for election of the PICMs (Dec 1, 2024), the City has
been "defaulted" to the permit-by-permit option described above, but it may still
choose to adopt the FEMA model ordinance by incorporating their model code into
the applicable sections of our WDO and related floodplain management
regulations.
10
Honorable Mayor and City Council
April 14, 2025
Page 3
While participation in the NFIP is voluntary, nonparticipating flood-prone
communities and communities who have withdrawn or are suspended from the
program face the following sanctions:
1 . No resident will be able to purchase a flood insurance policy.
2. Existing flood insurance policies will not be renewed.
3. No Federal grants or loans for development may be made in identified flood
hazard areas under programs administered by Federal agencies such as HUD,
EPA, and SBA;
4. No Federal disaster assistance may be provided to repair insurable buildings
located in identified flood hazard areas for damage caused by a flood.
5. No Federal mortgage insurance or loan guarantees may be provided in
identified flood hazard areas. This includes policies written by FHA, VA, and
others.
6. Federally insured or regulated lending institutions such as banks and credit
unions must notify applicants seeking loans for insurable buildings in flood hazard
areas that there is a flood hazard and that the property is not eligible for Federal
disaster relief.
Rather than risk suspension or removal from the NFIP, City staff feel strongly that the
City should initiate an ordinance adoption process to meet the implementation
deadlines currently set by FEMA (July 31, 2025).
While a group of local governments in the State are seeking a preliminary injunction
against the new NFIP directives, and the City is closely monitoring that litigation for
any decision that may halt or delay implementation of the PICMs, staff want to be
prepared with an adoption option regardless of such outcome.
DISCUSSION:
The City is proposing amendments to the Woodburn Development Ordinance and
Woodburn Floodplain Ordinance to comply with the PICM. In the coming weeks,
staff will complete its detailed technical and legal analysis of Options #2 and #3 of
the three PICM options (adoption of the model code or establish an individual
permit-by-permit site habitat assessment) to determine which option to carry
forward for recommended adoption. In general, the code amendments will be
directed by FEMA to protect habitat and achieve "no net loss" measures that will
avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to Upper Willamette salmonoid species in the
floodplain areas. The goal is for floodplain development in Woodburn to achieve
11
Honorable Mayor and City Council
April 14, 2025
Page 4
"no net loss" to beneficial floodplain functions which would look like no net increase
in fill, no net increase in impervious surfaces, and no net loss of trees.
Both PICM options—the model code and the habitat assessment—present
administrative challenges, however:
• Adoption of specific code provisions will provide a clearer road map for staff
and applicants, but the current model has not been reviewed by the state
(DLCD) and may fail to meet Oregon housing requirements of being "clear
and objective."
• Applicants likely will need to retain consultant services for both options, but
the site-by-site habitat assessment approach likely would require these to a
greater degree.
• Under the site-by-site habitat assessment approach, it would be advisable for
the County to retain a third-party reviewer with the necessary professional
expertise to review the habitat assessments submitted by applicants. There
are additional administrative costs associated with executing and managing
this type of contract.
The proposed amendments will be reviewed and processed as Type 4 Legislative
Amendments to the WDO. Currently, staff is aiming for the Woodburn Planning
Commission to hold a public hearing on May 22, 2025, to consider the amendments.
The Commission is expected to close the public hearing and deliberate on the
proposed amendments that night. The Commission will then make a
recommendation to the City Council. It is expected that a City Council public
hearing on the amendments will occur in June.
Woodburn properties that may be affected by the code amendments (e.g. those
located within the Special Flood Hazard Area) will be mailed notice 20-40 days prior
to the first public hearing on this matter.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
• FEMA Letter to NFIP-Participating Communities - July 15, 2024
• FEMA - Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures Fact Sheets
• Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development (DLCD) PICM FAQ
• Map of Woodburn Special Flood Hazard Areas
12
FFIV(A Rvgion 10
130 2.28t1l Stn-c er,Sw
Bodic.11,WA 9802 I 8627
VARTA,
FEMA
July 15, 2024
Frank Lonergan
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
Dear Frank Lonergan:
The purpose of this letter is to announce the start of the United States Department of Homeland
Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)Pre-Implementation Compliance
Measures (PICM) for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)participating communities in
Oregon. The intent of PICM is to ensure the continued existence of threatened or endangered species
in compliance with the Endangered Species Act(ESA). These measures include coordination with
communities to provide appropriate technical assistance, help identify available resources, deliver
trainings, and facilitate workshops to ensure on-going community participation in the NFIP. These
pre-implementation compliance measures will assist communities in preparing for the Final NFIP-
ESA Implementation Plan by helping them develop short and long-term solutions to ensure their on-
going participation in the NFIP.
FEMA is currently conducting a National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) evaluation of impacts
associated with the Oregon NFIP-ESA Implementation Plan. FEMA developed this plan, in part, due
to a Biological Opinion in 2016 from National Marine Fisheries Services. The Biological Opinion
recommended specific measures for FEMA to take to avoid jeopardizing endangered species,
including interim compliance measures. The release of the Final Implementation Plan (Plan) is
anticipated by 2026, following the Record of Decision in the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)
process, then FEMA will fully implement the Plan in 2027.
FEMA has heard concerns from several communities regarding challenges they are facing to meet
the expectations of this Plan. To provide communities with the support needed to incorporate ESA
considerations to their permitting of development in the floodplain, FEMA will inform, educate, and
support our Oregon NFIP participating communities through the PICM before the Final
Implementation Plan is released.
NFIP participating communities in Oregon must select one of the PICM pathways which include the
following: (1) adopt a model ordinance that considers impacts to species and their habitat and
requires mitigation to a no net loss standard; (2) choose to require a habitat assessment and mitigation
plan for development on a permit-by-permit basis; or(3)putting in place a prohibition on floodplain
development in the Special Flood Hazard Area(SFHA). Communities must pick a PICM pathway by
December 1, 2024. If a community fails to inform FEMA of its selection, they will default to the
permit-by-permit PICM pathway. Communities will be required to report their floodplain
development activities to FEMA beginning in January of 2025. Failure to report may result in a
compliance visit.
13
Lonergan
July 15 2024
Page 2
As a part of the PICM, FEMA will implement a delay in the processing of two types of Letters of
Map Changes in the Oregon NFIP-ESA Implementation Plan area, specifically Letters of Map
Changes associated with the placement of fill in the floodplain: Conditional Letter of Map Revision
Based on Fill (CLOMR-F) and Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F)requests. This
action was specifically requested by NMFS in their 2016 Biological Opinion and serves to remove
any perceived programmatic incentive of using fill in the floodplain. This delay in processing will
begin on August 1, 2024, and will be in place until the Final Implementation Plan is released.
Your community's ongoing participation in the NFIP is critical, as it provides access to flood
insurance for property owners, renters, and businesses. In City Of Woodburn there are currently 30 of
NFIP policies in force representing $8207000 in coverage for your community.
FEMA will be conducting informational virtual webinars this summer to provide an overview and
status update for the Oregon NFIP-ESA integration, introduce the Pre-Implementation Compliance
Measures, and provide an opportunity for Oregon NFIP floodplain managers to ask questions of
FEMA staff. In the fall, FEMA will hold workshops to provide in-depth opportunities for local
technical staff to work with FEMA technical staff, to understand and discuss issues relating to the
PICM.
The webinars will be held virtually over Zoom. The information at each webinar is the same so your
jurisdiction only needs to attend one. You can register for a webinar using the links below.
• Wednesday, July 31 at 3-5pm PT: h,. -s//ll�eantlswest zoos-ti tus/n� c ut g/1�„gis e //"""E c
alij!ps f dl�,9uf'uoetl gR ud8 „ll�gj
• Tuesday, August 13 at 9:30-11:30am PT: M.tl�s;//<_eartiswest coon.a.s/maw tin /I,� ister/t.ZAoal
isms.(__i_ J()_K .c1d�
• Thursday, August 15 at 2-4pm PT:
aa946a119dN/L (_"rcJil.
• Wednesday, August 21 at 12:30-2:30pm PT:
latt ss://ll:ean aswest.. oom..;us/meetun /re:pste�/tZY���;uGsrD8rll9DZ022vG v9Rn- zVel JZA9:
y
FEMA will also develop a questionnaire to allow communities to identify how they currently
incorporate or plan to incorporate ESA considerations, both in the short-term and long-term. To assist
communities in making this determination, FEMA will be offering guidance on the potential
pathways that help ensure current compliance. Communities will also be asked to help identify what
technical assistance and training would be most beneficial. Feedback from this questionnaire will
drive FEMA's engagement and outreach.
Upon completion of the Environmental Impact Statement review and determination, the Final
Implementation Plan will be distributed along with several guidance documents and a series of
Frequently Asked Questions. FEMA will also be starting NFIP Compliance Audits, in which we will
be reviewing permits issued by communities for development in the floodplain and will expect the
community to be able to demonstrate what actions are being taken to address ESA considerations.
If you have any questions,please contact us through our proj ect email address f i 1 i�, K f ) i ri'T
f I f e I 1 l r(I� t Thank you for your community's on-going efforts to reduce flood risk in your
14
Lonergan
July 15 2024
Page 3
community and for your support as we worked toward these milestones.
Sincerely,
4w4�4
Willie G. Nunn
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region 10
cc: ChrisKerr, City Of Woodburn
John Graves, Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch Chief
Deanna Wright, Oregon State National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator
Enclosure: Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures Fact Sheet
15
�l
il ��11111111�lt ildat ilgervl S����edeis Act Gi"egani "Natiall I����110101d
III rnIp, 11irn Ita°tioIin Compliancle Measures Overview
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilI
FEMAwill assisticommunities witi
comingictranges to the Naitioi ial Flood Insurance Prog,ram (NPHIP)
011
W[iy are the chaiiiiges nleeded?
As the result of a Biological Opir i io r Iby the lNaitioi r 11
Mlarill Fisheries Service, communifies are required to,
deimcinstil how fillo,odplair i develliopmeii wt is, comi pi I ia i it
wfth the Endaingereld Species Act in Spleciai Flood Hazard
Are a. ,ling ail needeld to, protet the habiti iof
Oil 111111 11
several sipecies of film ai rd the Souther l t Resident ki[leir The, Niatilloill II ilmmv thwil
whales to mimpty with the Erriddingleired 'Species Act (ESA). Progtam serves to,protect fives
FEW outlHned these chail tges i n the.i fit L.... aill proplej,ty, lilill rediurcing,
costs to, taxpayers;due to
Current status flooding,bias.
FEW is evaluatirig,proposed chaill to the NFIR
autfill irili th[e impleim,eir rtation Plain through air
erlivir-orlirmeritill IIim pact stateimerit (EIS), iiiri cumpliaill with
the IINaitiortai Eirriviro,nimenti IPalllicy Act (NEP, ).
"IN hall t is "no,ml le"Sis"? The Fill Illimpleimenti IPlari is anticipated by 2026 folliow�irlg
Atiy deve1opmenit actimlili r'r wllltllng the Riecard of Declision i n the E IS Process, thein FlEM A,Will I fi
in negative,jtnpacrts til crililre oir implemiell the p1arr irt 2027. IiJill therill ciommiurfll rieled
mmm rm Ilkey flooidp1ain filuictions to begi li takiri g actilovi to piri ha Ntat ar rd achieve "no i tet
thiat airetheill irniffigateld ior Iloss..' IFEMA liis offering seveirai resources f& connimurflties.,
avoided toof fset said impacts. to leairli iimore iaii W impleimeir rt liimteiriiin measuries, called Pire-
limpl1eimeriti t Compliance Measures (PlilCMls).
Tillinefine fOr Upidating the Gregon INRIP
SEINDE IDS SAbi 150l�W
Upinic(ni 011 the NPIP[mi
20,21-Earily 2025:FEMA�is drefting sin US to sIxidy Me effedsof FIE ill I be fjul�y
ore ,011' IreqUired Uytithe Meg raft limy PI'llementalim l
IMIP114MOINFIg Ithe Enal
Endatigefed Sll Act.
o
L...................... ........................
FEMA delitill the driaft FEMA iclomidwing, Ill and issme oregaii
Orill limpi,erwrentation Cild'Mach,ledlimmitiamil,andll NIFIP-ESA lirmpilemermatimi
Plain for INHIP-1ESA dire dA.edirnmi assism.ance. Ill
Integyl for 1he IPre-ImPlementiation
camil weasuri
--------------------
od
Jull 2,0214
FEMA
16
What can cornintunities, do, to cornp,ly with these chaiingess?
Ore on commurflties participating in the NPHIP cari take shart-term measuires to comply With ESA
requireirne�rits:, kricwri as IPIC:�Ms. FEMA developed t1hesie me�asjtjres irtressporise to,cm tceirits fromi
comirn m klities a baut th,e timie nand resources needed to meet req ulilimm e nit,s a nid ensure th,e i r firitu re good
startdiirmgjit the INFIPI. By irnplleirneritirigthiese. measures in mw, cumrnuniiities willi be better pirepaire�d far
colimpliairl,ce audits, Wh4ch will begirii where tlhe Firial limplerner"itatio,ni Plar"i i iiiirn place.
ConniMUniti,es cainselect one of thie fdRowfing three PI MS:
. ProhiUrt all immew dewelopmeitt in tine flooclpllaiirk..
. Incorporate the IES,A imito localli floodplain ordinances.
. Require Iperrmmitk appficarits to develop a Floodplllairii Hablitat Assessiime�nt.�ciac,t,iiime^r�it�iiimg that their
piroposed de�feloprneii a in time Specialli IFloodi Hazard Area wiIIIIII aclhilieve "no net loss."
Ocmrmurintie irrnuu t report to IFEIMA on their impliennieritatian of interim imneastmires,.
14"1 addition to, the above measureS,. Lis of Ajugust, 1, 20,24, FEW is i�g processiri g,
applicabiormfur Letteirs of Map IRewduisioirt used on Fillip (LOMR-Fs)airW Coriditiiartali Lette�rs of IMap
Rey it based on Fill (CLOMR-Fs) in NRP comimunities t!o avoid Ipoteirvtniellllll, irkegative. effects on IESA-
fisted species..
IFEMA Iis 11"iere to,st,lippcoirt yauir carnmunity
FEMIA is offerlir ig,several resoi,mrces to assist domimunlifies ir i preparh iig for th(e Oregan INFIIIIIP-ESA,
Emple-me mitatiot i Pllaii t..
• W(fornia(tiaitall' Webbitairs (Suntmiar 2024): Learn about What FEMA is doing to revise tlhe^
Implemeirktabo,rii Mari airkd receive airk iritroducboit to thee PICIVIs.
• QDiu estiloiiiiii irre(suiimimer,20 r4): Shiare w1hatfloodplain martageme nit me�asjures your comimi,irifty
is currently camplywith, the IESA, wl0ch PI[CMs youre midst iirvite-rested iiirt, and
what sup port youi need. Your feedback will Ihellp us plan tloe fail works,lhops and identify needs for
teclu i4calli assistaii i(ce.
• Workskepps(F411,202,4): Get artiri-dieptIN Illook at IPllllWs and talk through quesfioiris and cortcerris
within FEMA staff.
• Technical Assii.,stance (Se�,giins iiin FaIll 2024)c Get support from FEMA to be.gin iirnplerneirviting
PICIVIS.
Learn m,oreand paiticipate
ViNt julkim to read thic,Illatest,
info,rmatia',nabout INHIPI-ESA,tn tegmabonf in OT'leg'am
Youl,cain iall"B"D mint act Uis
Learri more at feina.gov Jully 2,02'4 2
17
ire iiin III a'fl ain as I IlF:Iood IIIhns wiiraiin c IIII°'it irann S1pedesAct Ihn r lii iiin
Pire4impleimentatiloin CompilainceitBasicsi
What are IPI CI
Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures, also known as
PICMS, are short-term measures that communities must
adopt to comply with Endangered Species Act (ESA)
requirements under the NFIP. FEMA has developed these
measures to address Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
(RPA) Element 2 (Interim Measures) in the 2016 National
Fisheries and Marine Services (NMFS) Biological Opinion
(BiOp). These interim measures are intended to occur as
the agency undertakes a National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) review to assess the effects of FEMA's What IS no net loss?
proposed NFIP-ESA integration efforts. Any development action resulting in
Under PICM, communities may select one of three negative impacts to one or more key
compliance measures: floodplain functions that are then
mitigated or avoided to offset said
1. Prohibit all new development in the floodplain; impacts.
2. Incorporate the ESA performance standards into
local floodplain ordinances through a model In other words: when developing in the
ordinance; or SFHA, all development actions must be
3. Require permit applications to develop a adequately avoided or mitigated to ensure
Floodplain Habitat Assessment documenting that that floodplain functions can operate at
their proposed development in the Special Flood the same capacity as before the
Hazard Area (SFHA) will achieve no net loss. development action occurred.
No Net Loss focuses on the floodplain
Which communities in Oregon are subject to IPICI functions of:
PICM, and future Oregon NFIP-ESA integration
• Floodplain Storage
performance standards, apply to communities that are: • Water Quality
1. Located in the Oregon implementation area, as • Vegetation
specified by the 2016 NMFS BiOp;
2. Participating in the NFIP; and
3. Have a mapped SFHA
PICM standards and requirements only apply to areas
located within the SFHA.
FEMA
18
'The INIFIIIP is a national program, why is only Oregon subject to PICI
NFIP-ESA integration is occurring in areas where FEMA has consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and NMFS. FEMA consulted with NMFS to address changes needed to the NFIP
program within Oregon's Columbia River drainage basin and Coast to better protect ESA-listed species
of salmonoids and southern resident killer whales within the area.
Other areas where consultations have occurred are in the Puget Sound of Washington, California, New
Mexico, and Florida. Other ESA-listed species may have their needs addressed in the future in other
parts of the country.
What authority allows FIE VIA to apply additional performance standards for INo INet 1,,,,o
Under 44 CFR 60.3(a)(2) a community must ensure that all other Federal, State and Local permits have
been obtained when they are permitting a project in the SFHA. As such a local community must ensure that
a "take permit" under section 10 of the ESA is not required. The NMFS Biological Opinion on the
implementation of the NFIP in Oregon has determined that developing a floodplain may affect the three key
floodplain functions and potentially cause take.
Therefore, a community must ensure that any project that has an adverse effect on those three functions
mitigates for the effect to a no net loss standard. FEMA has been authorized take under the RPAs in the
NMFS BiOp on the implementation of the NFIP in Oregon.A community participating in the NFIP can use the
NFIP take authorization for coverage as long as they are abiding by the NFIP-ESA performance standards.
A community also has the option of seeking their own take coverage for a project through another federal
nexus. They may also choose to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan for their floodplain development
program under section 10 of the ESA and obtain their own take permit.
IHow long is PI CI supposed to last?
PICM is intended to address ESA compliance as interim measures while the agency undertakes a NEPA
review of FEMA's proposed NFIP-ESA integration efforts. PICM will be required for communities through the
remainder of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. Once the Record of Decision (ROD) for the
EIS is issued, and thus marking the end of the EIS process, PICM will no longer be required. The ROD is
expected to be issued in 2026.
When will PICI o into effect?
Communities must adopt and implement a PICM by December 1st, 2024. If communities do not select a
PICM by this deadline, they will be defaulted to the Permit-by-Permit approach. Communities adopting the
model ordinance, must ensure the ordinance is adopted by their community by July 31st, 2025. As
communities work to adopt the ordinance, they will still be required to implement another PICM option
between December 1st, 2024 and July 31st, 2025.
W° q)
Learn more and participate
Visit www df msU.,.ou �al��)14t art zaadonZre i) -!, fora,(? w�f1 x--inte r�,Id n to access the model
ordinance,habitat assessment guide,and read the latest information about NFIP-ESA Integration in Oregon.
You can also contact us at `E R1 M1T-PU I c?f u< dh ov
19
i0�regan III a,flainaaI IlF:Iood IIIhnswiraiinc IIII°'ir irann S1pedesAct Ihn ra lii iiin
Pire4impleimentatiloin Compliance Measuire Selection
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilI
Understanding your community's needs is essential to selecting a Pre-Implementation Compliance Measure
(PICM) suited to you.
Under PICM, communities may select one of three measures to ensure Endangered Species Act (ESA)
compliance:
• Prohibit all new development in the floodplain;
• Incorporate the ESA performance standards into local floodplain ordinances through the PICM Model
Ordinance; or
• Require permit applications to develop a Floodplain Habitat Assessment documenting that their
proposed development in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) will achieve no net loss.
PICM, and future Oregon NFIP-ESA integration performance standards apply to the following communities:
• Located within the NFIP-ESA implementation area;
• Participating in the NFIP; and
• Have a mapped Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
Furthermore, portions of the community that do not fit the above criteria are not subject to PICM. PICM
standards and requirements do not extend beyond the SFHA.
Understanding the PICIM Options
The 2016 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) identifies that FEMA's
interim compliance with the ESA must require communities to:
• Prohibit all NFIP-related actions in the SFHA; or
• Determine the presence of fish or critical habitat, assess permit applications for potential impacts to
species and habitat, and require that any action with potential adverse effects be fully mitigated with
no net loss of floodplain functions.
The PICM Model Ordinance and Permit-by-Permit approaches attempt to mitigate impacts of
development and ensure no net loss of floodplain functions.
Adoption of the PICM model floodplain ordinance by a community would ensure that development
meets ESA compliance as performance standards are built into the code.
A Permit-by-Permit approach would require development applications to analyze potential loss to
floodplain functions and propose mitigation that abides by the mitigation requirements outlined in the
habitat assessment guide and ensures no net loss of the impacted functions.
What is the main difference between the PICI I od l Ordinance and IPermit-by-Permit
approaches?
Both the PICM Model Ordinance and Permit-by-Permit approaches require a community to analyze and
determine the potential loss to three key floodplain functions (floodplain storage, water quality, and
vegetation) and required mitigation for any loss to those functions by using pre-determined ratios. Mitigation
ratios are provided to ensure that permitted development meets the No Net Loss standards without having
to do further analysis of mitigation options to comply with the ESA. For instance, the intrinsic habitat value of
a single tree at 6" diameter breast height (dbh) in the Riparian Buffer Zone (RBZ) has already been factored
into the ratios and requires a minimum of 3 trees to be planted to make up for the loss of habitat value at
the development site.
20
Under the P|CM Model Ordinance approach, compliance with NF|P-ESA integration standards for P|CMare
built into the code and therefore, no separate prUC8SS is n88U8U to ensure compliance. The Perm it-by-P8rrnit
approach requires all n8wf|UUUp|@in U8v8|Uprn8nt analyze any negative impact tUthe f|UUUp|@in functions
and identify and implement appropriate mitigation measures tU ensure NF|P-ESAcompliance.
is it possible to adopt the PICIM IModel Ordinance but also allow for a Permit-by-Permit
approach for more complicated projects that do not necessarily fit into typical site
development type of processes?
Both approaches require new development t0 analyze and determine the potential loss t0 the f|00dp|8in
functions and mitigate for any loss t0 those functions at the required ratios specified in the P|CW1 W10d8|
Ordinance and Habitat Assessment Guide.AS development would require the same mitigation, 8P8rmit-by-
P8rnnitapproach and habitat assessment for 8 project would not be needed if community has already
adopted the Model Ordinance.
Would prohibiting all new development in the SIFIHA prevent habitat or floodplain
restoration projects from being implemented?
The 2016 NMFS BiOp did not carve out exceptions under Element 2 of the RPA when proposing to prohibit
all NF|P-related actions in th8SFHA. However, FEMAwUu|U agree that restoration prV]8CtS and @ few other
activities CUu|U be exempt from this P|CM option if the community is careful in how they word the prohibition
and exceptions.
IHow are communities expected to adopt a PICIM?
Communities must use their |UC@||y @UUpt8U and required processes to ensure that they are @b|8 to |8g@||y
implement the chosen P|CM option.
What is the IHabitat Assessment Guide and when is it used?
The Habitat Assessment Guide is used under the Perm it-by-Perm it approach. The guide provides a
methodology to review and analyze potential loss tUf|UUUp|@in functions that @ development might incur as
well @S guidance surrounding mitigation required to ensure NF|P-ESA requirements under PICK A
community may use this guide to review a submitted assessment for new development to ensure that the
methodology for evaluating impacts and proper mitigation to achieve no net loss is being met.
Can a community change PICIVIs during this process?
Communities can change PICMs throughout the process but are required to implement their current PICM
until their new measure iS ready tUb8 fully implemented.
IHow do communities make their selection known to REIVIA?
Communities can notify FEW1A0f their P|CW1 selection through 8n email t0 the FEW1A-R10-W1|l-P|CW1inb0x.
Learn more and participate
ordinance,habitat assessment guide,and read the latest information aboutNFIP-ESA Integration in Oregon.
21
ire ii III a'fl iialII F:Iood IIII m i, iic S1pedesAct IIi mto m'fl ii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliilliillillillillillillilliilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilI
What is the timeline for implementing IPII I ?
Under PICM, communities may select one of three
r�
measures to ensure ESA compliance: 4
1. Prohibit all new development in the floodplain; `
2. Incorporate the ESA performance standards into
local floodplain ordinances through the PICM
Model Ordinance; or ,
3. Require permit applications to develop a PICM Reporting Requirements
Floodplain Habitat Assessment documenting that Beginning January 31st, 2025,
their proposed development in the Special Flood communities will be required to collect
Hazard Area (SFHA) will achieve no net loss. data elements related to the Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative (RPA) 5 in the
National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)
Communities must adopt and implement a PICM by 2016 Biological Opinion (B4p). Collection
December 1st, 2024, ensuring any changes needed to of these data elements is required on all
implement this option have already been made. new floodplain development permits.
Communities that do not select a PICM by December 1st,
2024, will be defaulted to the Permit-by-Permit approach. Required data elements for reporting
Communities seeking to adopt performance standards include, but are not limited to:
• Applicant,project title,project description;
into local floodplain ordinances through the PICM Model . Project location and size of project in
Ordinance will have until July 31st, 2025, to adopt SFHA, Riparian Buffer Zone(RBZ),and
ordinances and make necessary changes. However, the Floodway;
community must still implement another PICM between • Amount of fill added and compensatory
December 1st and July 31st to ensure ESA compliance in storage created;
the interim. • Area of clearing and grading that occurred;
• Acres disconnected and reconnected
Can communities request extensions? to/from the f loodplain;
No, communities must meet the established December * Amount of new impervious surface added;
1st, 2024 deadline or default to a Perm it-by-Perm it * Type and amount of water qualitymitigation provided;
approach. FEMA will work with communities to assess , Number of trees removed and their size;
the status of the adoption and implementation of PICMs . Number of trees planted.
leading up to the deadline.
Are projects that Obtained a development permit Communities will report this data back to
before December 1st required t0 meet PICIM9 FEMA via reporting toolkit on an annual
basis, beginning January 31, 2026.
Existing projects with permits obtained before December
1st will not be subject to PICM. The reporting toolkit,'when'available,will
be downloadable from FEMA's website.
22
Are projects permitted before IPICIM implementation, but where construction occurs after
PICIM begins, subject to IPICIM?
FEMA encourages communities to follow local vesting laws. The agency's focus is on new permits and
applications after December 1st. Construction of projects that were permitted before this deadline can
continue as normal.
What if a community's adoption process timeline does not allow us to meet the December
1st deadline of implementing a IPIICIM?
While FEMA recognizes that the time it takes to implement a PICM varies by community, there is still an
obligation to abide by ESA requirements. If a community cannot implement a PICM by the December 1st
deadline, FEMA will work with the community to consider alternative options to remain compliant with ESA
requirements in the interim.
IHow do communities make their selection known to IFIEIMA?
Communities can notify FEMA of their PICM selection through an email to the FEMA-RlO-MIT-PICM inbox.
(FEMA-rlO-mit-picm@fema.dhs.gov).
What penalties are communities looking at if they cannot meet the December deadline?
Communities will default to the permit-by-permit option if no selection was given to FEMA by December 1st. If
FEMA does not hear from a community, the agency will contact them to identify what technical assistance is
needed to implement PICM. If a community has no PICM implemented by July 31st, 2025, FEMA will
prioritize an audit of floodplain development activities that occurred in the community, specifically focused
on the PICM time-period to assess what has occurred and any mitigation that would have been required for
development that occurred.
N�
Learn more and participate
Visit www.feMLagoy Ja b�)ulZgW a n i z:a t i o�nrk, ion-1 Q )re,�on n f i�)-g5:,1-ante.La ti o n to access the reporti ng tool,
model ordinance,habitat assessment guide,and read the latest information about NFIP-ESA Integration in
Oregon.
You can also contact us at F1EMA-R_1QM1T-RCM LPfema.dhs,.g(.)v
23
ire iiin III a'flainaaI IlF:Iood IIIhnswiiraiinc IIII°'ir irann S1pedesAct Ihn ra lii iiin
Pire4impleimentatiloin Compliance Measuire Kitilgation
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilI
Why is mitigation required?
Unlike ESA implementation in the Puget Sound of Washington, the 2016 National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) for Oregon allows for adverse effects to occur in the Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA), as long as they result in a no net loss of floodplain functions. No Net Loss allows for mitigation
and minimization of development and development-related impacts to occur in the SFHA, instead of just
avoidance.
Under No Net Loss, development actions can occur as long as adverse actions are mitigated so floodplain
functions can still operate at the same capacity as before the development action happened. Compliance of
No Net Loss standards is most commonly achieved through the use of mitigation ratios.
What are the floodplain functions?
NMFS, in the 2016 BiOp, has identified three floodplain functions that must be mitigated when developing
in the SFHA to ensure ESA compliance:
• Floodplain Storage
• Water Quality
• Vegetation
To make mitigating for these three functions measurable, FEMA has identified proxies for each of the
functions that translate to potential development actions occurring in the floodplain. These proxies include:
• Undeveloped Space (Floodplain Storage)
• Pervious Surface (Water Quality)
• Trees (Vegetation)
PICM mitigation requirements include compensation for the loss of undeveloped space, pervious surface,
and the removal of trees on a development site.
4 R �
1
I
V �
������ 11 y �II 1l II 11 �11 lI lI �y1111
Floodplain Storage Undeveloped Space Developed Space
Water Quality Pervious Surfaces Impervious Surface
Vegetation Trees Trees Removed
Floodplain functions, proxies, and actions mrti ateo a ainst
Undeveloped Space
Undeveloped space is defined as the volume of flood capacity and fish-accessible (the ability of a fish to
access a space) and fish-egress-able (the ability of a fish to exit a space) habitat from the existing ground to
the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) that is undeveloped.
Any form of development that reduces this flood storage volume and fish accessible/egress-able habitat
must be mitigated to achieve no net loss. Examples of this development include, but are not limited to:
• Addition of fill • Pilings
• Structures
• Concrete structures (vaults or tanks)
24
Mitigation is required for the volumetric space that occupies the area between the existing ground and BFE.
Proper mitigation includes creating an acceptable amount of undeveloped space between the existing ground
and BFE as determined by the mitigation ratios.
Fish accessibility and egress-ability is a key component of floodplain storage, as it ensures we are maintaining
habitat dynamics for ESA-listed species. Mitigating with ratios for undeveloped space will ensure you are also
accounting for fish accessibility and egress-ability.
lPervious and Impervious Surfaces
Pervious surfaces are surfaces that can be penetrated by water and help regulate the rate of surface water
runoff. Impervious surfaces are the opposite. They are surfaces that cannot be penetrated by water and
thereby increase surface water runoff, leading to erosion of stream banks, degradation of habitat, and
increased sediment loads in streams. Impervious surfaces also heat up water as it travels to the waterbody
and increase the overall temperature of the waterway. Additionally, impervious surfaces carry pollutants into
the waterbody that would have otherwise been filtered out by pervious surfaces.
In PICM, there are three options to mitigate against the addition of impervious surfaces:
• A replacement of the equivalent amount of area where impervious surfaces were added with pervious
surfaces;
• Development actions use documented low impact development or green infrastructure practices to
infiltrate and treat stormwater produced by the new impervious surface; or
• When the above two methods are not feasible, require professional stormwater retention to ensure no
increase in peak volume or flow and proper treatment to minimize pollutant loading.
'Trees
Trees play a vital role in the ecosystem and habitat of salmon. They stabilize banks against erosion, provide
shade which regulates temperature for the waterbody, and creates habitat that attracts insects and other vital
food sources. Under PICM, each tree over 6" diameter breast height (dbh) that is removed in the SFHA, must
be replaced as identified by ratios. As larger trees provide a greater role in ecosystem services, more trees are
required to replace them.
Replacement trees must be native species that would occur naturally in the Level III ecoregion of the impact
area. Replacement trees are assumed to be saplings and younger trees.
'The IRIBZ and IMe
The Riparian Buffer Zone (RBZ) is an area of land bordering rivers, streams, and other water bodies that
provides an outsized role in supporting floodplain functions that affect ESA-listed species and essential fish
habitat (EFH). The RBZ serves as important habitat to fish during flooding events, providing refuge from high
velocity flows in the floodway. Vegetation attracts insects and other vital food sources, filters sediment and
pollutants from runoff, and moderates water temperature through the shade it provides, and stabilizes
eroding banks.
Under PICM, FEMA has established a 170-foot RBZ for use in the NFIP-ESA integration area. This 170-foot
standard is measured from the ordinary high-water mark of a fresh waterbody, or from the mean higher-high
water line of a marine shoreline or tidally influenced river reach. This distance generally equates to 80% of the
maximum potential tree height of common tree species in the implementation area. The RBZ does not extend
beyond the SFHA, meaning that the RBZ ends where the SFHA ends, if it is less than 170 feet. Communities,
otherwise, cannot reduce the 170-foot RBZ boundary during PICM.
Learn more at fema.gov September 2024 2
25
"r
w �
flrlrrlf��lror��ri�rnom mi �������� 1Imlamd--�,,,y k
�-Measure 17UNee#Inland-��-�--�
Ordinary High Water Mark '''� Ordinary High 4WaYer Mark
Measuring ffie Riparian Buffer Zone
The RBZ has additional requirements on top of achieving No Net Loss standards due to its outsized role in the
floodplain functions.The RBZ does not ban development. When developing, the RBZ requires a beneficial gain
standard in addition to No Net Loss to provide additional benefits with no negative components to ESA-listed
species and essential fish habitats. The beneficial gain standard is as follows:
• An area within the same reach of the project and equivalent to 5% of the total project area within the
RBZ shall be planted with native herbaceous and shrub vegetation.
Beneficial gain is required for development in the RBZ, with the following exceptions:
• Habitat restoration activities,
• Activities considered exempt from No Net Loss,
• Functionally dependent uses: A use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or
carried out in proximity to water. The term includes:
o Docking and port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or
passengers; and
o Ship building and ship repair facilities.
o Functionally dependent uses do not include long-term storage, related manufacturing facilities,
or ancillary facilities such as restrooms.
Understanding the I itigatio n RatioTable
Mitigation ratios are provided in PICM to ensure that permitted development meets the No Net Loss standards
without having to do further analysis of mitigation options to comply with the ESA. For instance, the intrinsic
habitat value of a single tree at 6" diameter breast height (dbh) in the Riparian Buffer Zone (RBZ) has already
been factored into the ratios and requires a minimum of 3 trees to be planted to make up for the loss of
habitat value at the development site.
Mitigation ratios to ensure ESA compliance vary based off location in the SFHA. The RBZ and Floodway play an
outsized role in supporting floodplain functions, therefore higher ratios for mitigation are required to negate
the impact of development. Development actions in the RBZ-fringe (the area outside of the RBZ but within the
rest of the SFHA) have a lesser impact on floodplain functions and therefore lower ratios can negate any
adverse impact.
Learn more at fema.gov September 2024 2
26
Mitigation is preferred to occur within the same site as where the development impacts occur, but offsite
mitigation is possible at the same ratios if mitigation is happening in the same reach (the section of waterway
where similar hydrologic conditions exist). If mitigation needs to occur outside of the reach where
development is happening, ratio requirements are essentially doubled.
Mitigation ratio requirements are only necessary when development impacts are occurring in the SFHA. If
development is happening partially inside the SFHA, ratios and mitigation is only required for impacts within
the area.
Proposed Mitigation Ratios to Achieive No Net Loss Standards
Undeveloped Pervious Trees Trees Trees (39"<dbh)
Basic Miti ate Ratios Space (ft3) Surface (ft�) (6"<dbh520") (20"<dbh539")
Z and Floodway 2:1 1:1 3:1 5:1 6:1
Z-Fringe 1.5:1 1:1 2:1 4:1 5:1
iti ation multipliers
Mitigation onsite to 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mitigation offsite, same
reach
Mitigation onsite to 200% 00% 200% 200% 200%
Mitigation offsite,
different reach, same
watershed (5')
o communities have to mitigate for each floodplain function, or do they choose only one
of the functions tomitigate?
Communities must mitigate for each impact to the floodplain function.
Can a community use one action to mitigate for multiple functions?
Communities would need to ensure that each floodplain function is properly mitigated. In some instances,
one mitigation action can count towards mitigation of more than one floodplain function. For example,
removing a 200 ft2 structure could count towards both flood storage and water quality mitigation if the
action is creating both undeveloped space and pervious surface.
Who is responsible for measuring the II IB ?
Communities are responsible for identifying the RBZ. FEMA will not identify them on Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM).
Why do communities have to ensure IESA compliance in SIFIHAs that provide no fish-
accessibility?
Even though there may not be essential fish habitat in an SFHA, development can still create indirect or
cumulative impacts that have an adverse effect on ESA-listed species and habitat downstream.
Learn more and participate
Visit yuywyw f rr a gpv abg,L1j gani ti n/�egp ri� , on ��� ir�� g��arCi� r�to access the model
ordinance,habitat assessment guide,and read the latest information about NFIP-ESA Integration in Oregon.
You can also contact us at i_EI I __ VT_IP1CM@feim a d-h 1gQy
Learn more at fema.gov September 2024 2
27
�% OREGON
� % Depaxtment of Land Conservation & Development
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-
Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2024
Disclaimer: This FAQ is general guidance based on the information available to DLCD staff at this time. It
is not a DLCD decision. It is not legal advice for any specific situation. Cities and counties should consult
their legal counsel for advice on specific decisions.
Table of Contents
What are "Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures"?............................................................................ 1
Whatled up to PICM?................................................................................................................................... 2
What is the role of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development in PICM?................ 2
What does a city or county need to do now?............................................................................................... 3
Does Pathway 3 "Prohibit floodplain development" require a moratorium?.............................................. 3
Is a "Measure 56 Notice" required for PICM short-term options?............................................................... 5
Will the state waive legislative adoption requirements? ............................................................................. 6
What if a city or county cannot complete the ordinance process by December 1, 2024? .......................... 7
Is the model ordinance clear & objective? ................................................................................................... 7
What is changing for cities and counties for letters of map revision based on fill? ..................................... 7
Are there any Measure 49 implications to adopting the PICM model ordinance? ...................................... 8
Where can I find additional information or ask questions about PICM? ..................................................... 9
What if a city or county received a PICM letter in error, or did not receive a PICM letter?....................... 10
What area does the BiOp cover?................................................................................................................ 10
What are "Pre-implementationCompliance Measures"?
In July 2024, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sent a letter to cities and counties in
Oregon instructing them to make short term changes to how the city or county regulates development
28
in flood hazard areas. FEMA describes these short-term actions as "pre-implementation" because they
are occurring before FEMA fully implements long-term changes to the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) to comply with the Endangered Species Act.
What led up to PICIVI?
In 2009, environmental advocacy organizations sued the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) alleging that FEMA violated the Endangered Species Act by not consulting with National Marine
Fisheries Services (NMFS) about how the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) could jeopardize
threatened species. FEMA resolved the lawsuit by formally consulting with NMFS to review the impact
of the NFIP. In April 2016, NMFS issued its Biological Opinion (BiOp) that concludes that the NFIP in
Oregon jeopardizes the survival of several threatened species, including salmon, sturgeon, eulachon,
and orcas. The BiOp contained a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) with recommendations from
NMFS to FEMA on how to avoid jeopardizing the threatened species. In October 2021, FEMA issued a
draft implementation plan on how to reduce the negative impacts of the NFIP on threatened species.
In 2023, FEMA started reviewing the draft implementation plan using a National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process, which is still underway. Under the NEPA process FEMA will analyze whether there
are additional alternatives or changes to the 2021 draft implementation plan to consider.
In September 2023, environmental advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit alleging that FEMA has been
too slow to implement the BiOp. Plaintiffs included the Center for Biological Diversity, the Northwest
Environmental Defense Center Willamette Riverkeeper, and The Conservation Antler. See also
coverage in the Oregonian.
In July 2024, FEMA announced a new program of pre-implementation compliance measures (PICM or
short-term measures) for the BiOp, separate from the NEPA full implementation (long-term measures)
process. FEMA hosted four PICM webinars in July and August, and is planning additional outreach to
assist NFIP communities in the fall of 2024. Some of the PICM pathways are included in the 2016 BiOp
under RPA, element 2.
FEMA now has two separate, but similar processes: NEPA evaluation of the full implementation plan,
and interim action through PICM. FEMA's webpage '� nanere Species Act Integration in Oregon"
contains information about both processes, but does not clearly distinguish between the two processes.
What is the role of the Oregon DepartmentLand Conservation
Developmentin PICIVI?
FEMA and the state provide funds to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) for staff to help cities and counties participate in the NFIP. DLCD floodplain staff do not set
program policies and cannot make decisions on behalf of FEMA. As FEMA provides more information
about what they are requiring through PICM, DLCD floodplain staff will try to explain the program to
cities and counties.
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2024 2 1 P a g e
29
While the floodplain staff at DLCD have a coordinating role communicating with FEMA, cities and
counties are always free to communicate directly with FEMA staff. In this role, DLCD staff provided
feedback on the full implementation plan (long-term measures) through the NEPA process. DLCD staff
provided information about how the land use planning system in Oregon would affect the full
implementation plan. DLCD did not have an opportunity to play a similar role while FEMA developed
PICM.
On September 26, 2024, Governor Tina Kotek sent a letter to FEMA expressing concerns about PICM,
similar to concerns raised in a letter from members of congress in August. DLCD will work with FEMA to
address the governor's concerns.
What does a city or county nee ?
FEMA is requiring cities and counties to select one of three PICM short-term paths by December 1,
2024:
• Pathway 1: Adopt the PICM model floodplain management ordinance that considers impacts to fish
habitat and requires mitigation to a no net loss standard.
• Pathway 2: Review individual development proposals and require permit-by-permit habitat mitigation
to achieve no net loss using "Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation" guidance from FEMA.
• Pathway 3: Prohibit all new development in the floodplain.
FEMA is also requiring cities and counties to gather additional data on local floodplain permitting
starting January 31, 2025, and submit an annual report to FEMA starting January 2026.
If a city or county does not choose a PICM path by December 1, 2024, then FEMA expects the city or
county to use Pathway 2 for permit-by-permit habitat assessment and mitigation.
Once local planning staff review the FEMA documents (PICM model ordinance and habitat assessment
guidance), planning staff may want to discuss the PICM paths with other internal local staff, and their
local legal counsel. A starting point could be to determine how much developable land is within the
Special Floodplain Hazard Area (SFHA). With that data to inform local decision making, staff might want
to report to decision makers and the public explaining the situation and may find this FAQ useful as
background. An informational work-session could be helpful to explore options for what may or may not
work at the local level. DLCD staff(regional representatives and flood hazards staff) are available for
technical assistance; however, many questions will need to go to FEMA. Use the dedicated email
address: FEMA-RIO-MIT-PICM@fema.dhs.gov.
Does "Prohibit l lain development" require rri ?
No. A city or county has at least two options for prohibiting development in the special flood hazard
area: temporary moratorium or permanent rezoning.
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2024 3 1 P a g e
30
Option A: Temporary Moratorium
ORS 197.520 to 197.540 defines a process for a city or county to declare a moratorium to temporarily
prevent all development in a specific area. Typically, a city or county would declare a moratorium where
there are insufficient public facilities, which would not apply in this case. ORS 197.520(3) allows a
different type of moratorium if a city or county demonstrates there is a compelling need based on the
findings below:
For urban or urbanizable land:
• That application of existing development ordinances or regulations and other applicable law is
inadequate to prevent irrevocable public harm from development in affected geographical areas;
• That the moratorium is sufficiently limited to ensure that a needed supply of affected housing types
and the supply of commercial and industrial facilities within or in proximity to the city or county are
not unreasonably restricted by the adoption of the moratorium;
• Stating the reasons alternative methods of achieving the objectives of the moratorium are
unsatisfactory;
• That the city or county has determined that the public harm which would be caused by failure to
impose a moratorium outweighs the adverse effects on other affected local governments, including
shifts in demand for housing or economic development, public facilities and services and buildable
lands, and the overall impact of the moratorium on population distribution; and
• That the city or county proposing the moratorium has determined that sufficient resources are
available to complete the development of needed interim or permanent changes in plans, regulations
or procedures within the period of effectiveness of the moratorium.
For rural land:
• That application of existing development ordinances or regulations and other applicable law is
inadequate to prevent irrevocable public harm from development in affected geographical areas;
• Stating the reasons alternative methods of achieving the objectives of the moratorium are
unsatisfactory;
• That the moratorium is sufficiently limited to ensure that lots or parcels outside the affected
geographical areas are not unreasonably restricted by the adoption of the moratorium; and
• That the city or county proposing the moratorium has developed a work plan and time schedule for
achieving the objectives of the moratorium.
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2024 4 1 P a g e
31
Moratoriums are legally complicated. This description is only a summary of the law. A city or county
should consult carefully with their legal counsel to determine whether and how a moratorium would
work in their specific situation, and to review the applicable timelines for which a moratorium may be in
place and circumstances for extending a moratorium.
Option B: Permanent Rezoning
A city or county could permanently rezone the land within the special flood hazard area to a zone that
would not permit development. This would not be appropriate for all cities and counties, but could be
appropriate if the area in the SFHA is relatively small, unlikely to develop, or publicly owned.
I r Notice" required r PICM short-termis?
Most likely yes, but cities and counties should consult with their legal counsel on how the notification
requirements apply in the specific local circumstances.
Background on Measure 56 Notices
Cities and counties in Oregon are required to send a notice to landowners before "rezoning" property.
This requirement was originally enacted through Ballot Measure 56 in 1998, and is codified in Oregon
Revised Statutes (ORS) 227.186 for cities and ORS 215.503 for counties. The requirement uses a broad
definition of rezoning that includes any change that "limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed."
DLCD maintains a wy bpa�e on the landowner notification requirement.
Pathway 1 —Model ordinance
Cities and counties staff should carefully review current zoning and development regulations for
property within the SFHA. If properties are zoned for open space or conservation, then the PICM model
ordinance might not further limit uses.
If properties are zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use, the PICM model ordinance would
likely limit those uses, and the Measure 56 notification requirement could apply. Most local floodplain
codes require owners to obtain a permit for development in the floodplain. Permit processing varies for
each city or county. Oregon's model floodplain Ordinance (version 2020) meets minimum NFIP
standards. However, the updated PICM model ordinance contains new standards in section 6.0
(highlighted in yellow) which could limit currently allowed uses, in which case the Measure 56
notification requirement would apply.
Pathway 2—Permit-by-permit habitat assessment and mitigation
Cities and counties should carefully review any existing requirements for habitat mitigation. Most cities
and counties do not require mitigation for habitat impacts, so the city or county would be adopting a
new ordinance to require assessment and mitigation for development in flood hazard areas. These new
development regulations would most likely limit currently allowed uses, and thus the Measure 56
notification requirement would apply.
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2024 5 1 P a g e
32
Pathway 3—Prohibit floodplain development
If a city or county declares a temporary moratorium under ORS 197.520 to 197.540, then the Measure
56 notification requirements would likely apply because a moratorium would limit or prohibit uses that
would otherwise be allowed.
If a city or county rezones land or amends development regulations to permanently prohibit
development within the SFHA, then the city or county should carefully review the previous zoning and
allowed uses for each parcel. If some properties were previously zoned for open space or conservation,
then the prohibition on development is not likely to be a limitation on future use. If some properties are
zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use, then the prohibition on development would limit
those uses, and thus the Measure 56 notification requirement would apply.
A city or county may not want to completely prohibit all development in the floodplain and may want to
think about explicitly adding in activities exempt from the no net loss standards as listed in section 6.3 of
the PICM Model Ordinance. Some of the exempt activities include normal maintenance of structures,
street repairs, habitat restoration activities, routine agricultural practices, and normal maintenance of
above ground utilities and would still require a local floodplain development permit. However, if a city
or county wishes to include activities beyond those listed in section 6.3, then the city or county will
likely need to adopt the model ordinance or require permit-by-permit habitat mitigation for the uses
that are still allowed. It may be simpler to choose pathway 1 (model ordinance) or pathway 2 (permit-
by-permit) instead. Cities and counties should communicate with FEMA about any exemptions.
Will the state waive legislative i requirements?
Each city or county has its own requirements for adopting an ordinance. The state has no authority to
waive those requirements.
ORS 197.610 through 197.625 requires cities and counties to submit notice to DLCD 35 days before the
first hearing to adopt a change to a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation. The statute does not
authorize DLCD to waive this requirement. If it is not possible to send the notice 35 days prior to the
hearing, cities and counties should send the notice as soon as possible. The notice can include a draft
ordinance that will be revised before adoption. If a city or county does not provide notice 35 days prior
to the hearing, this does not invalidate the ordinance. A party that did not appear before the local
government in the proceedings would be allowed to appeal the ordinance.
DLCD has no authority to waive the required Measure 56 notification to landowners that is described
a bove.
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2024 6 1 P a g e
33
What if a city or county cannot complete the ordinance process by December 1,
2024?
Start the process of evaluating the PICIM pathways as soon as possible. Keep FEMA informed via their
P|CIMinbox regarding your P|CIM path and progress.
Send questions to FEMA early in the process to give them time to respond, and document when replies
are received.
Communicate often to FEMA to update them on your status and expected adoption date.
Is the model ordinance clear & objective?
Background on Clear and Objective Standards
Oregon Revised Statutes 197A.400 requires cities and counties to:
"adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the
development of housing, including needed housing, on land within an urban growth boundary."
[emphasis added.]
The legislature amended this statute to include areas within unincorporated communities and rural
residential zones. The amendment takes effect on July 1, 2O25.
Reviewing Model Ordinances
DLCD plans to review the existing Ortg2n Model Flood Hazard Ordinance to identify standards for
residential development that may not be clear and objective. Over the past year, DLCD also reviewed an
early draft of the model ordinance in the NEPA process for the full implementation of the BiOp. DLCD
identified several aspects of that early draft model ordinance that may not be clear and objective and
suggested that FEMA revise those aspects. DLCD has not yet determined whether the PICM Model
Ordinance has only clear and objective standards.
What is changing for cities and counties for letters of map revision based on fill?
FEMA has temporarily suspended processing of applications for letters of map revision based on fill
(LOMR-F) and conditional letters of map revision based on fill (CLOMR-F) as of August 1, 2024. FEMA is
doing this to remove any perceived incentive to using fill and to avoid potentially negative effects on
habitat for threatened species.
FEMA is not prohibiting fill in the SFHA, rather they are suspending the opportunity for owners or
developers to revise floodplain maps to be released from mandatory flood insurance. Therefore, if fill is
used for structure elevation and there is a federally backed mortgage on the property, flood insurance
will still be required. Cities and counties should continue to enforce their existing f|oodp|ain ordinance
on regulations regarding placement of fill in flood hazard areas.
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2O24 7 | Page
34
If an applicant asks for a community acknowledgement form (CAF) for a CLOMR-F or LOMR-F for a
project not covered in the exceptions below, it would be wise to contact FEMA before signing.
Exceptions for L/CLOMR-F processing:
• Projects that are undergoing Section 7 consultation via an alternative federal nexus
• LOMR-Fs for already processed CLOMR-Fs
• CLOMRs required for habitat restoration projects
What are the Measure 49 implications to the PICM pathways?
Measure 49 could apply in some situations, but it is unlikely that a city or county would have to pay
compensation to a landowner. Cities and counties should consult with their legal counsel to analyze their
specific situation.
Background:
Ballot Measure 49 was approved by Oregon voters in 2007. Its initial impact was on property owners
who acquired their property before land use regulations were established in the 1970's and 1980's. In
many cases, those owners were permitted to build up to three houses, even though the current zoning
would not allow new houses.
Measure 49 also applies to future changes in land use regulations. Those provisions are codified in ORS
195.300 to 195.336. If a state or local government enacts a land use regulation that restricts a
residential use and reduces the fair market value of a property, then the owner can apply for just
compensation.The compensation can be monetary, or a waiver to allow the owner to use the property
without applying the new land use regulation. This requirement does not apply if the new regulation is
for the protection of public health and safety.
Pathway 1 —Model ordinance
If a property owner applied for just compensation as a result of a city or county adopting the PICM
model ordinance, the city or county would process the claim as provided in ORS 195.300 through 314.
This includes evaluating the claim to determine whether it is valid, and then deciding whether to waive
the regulation or pay monetary compensation.
First, determine whether the claimant owned the property before the city or county adopted the new
regulations in the model ordinance.
Next determine whether the new regulations restrict the use of the property for single-family dwellings.
The statute does not include a specific definition of "restrict" in this context. If the new ordinance has
the effect of completely prohibiting residential use, then it clearly restricts the use. If the new ordinance
allows single-family dwellings, but places design standards or conditions of development, these likely do
not restrict the use.
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2024 8 1 P a g e
35
Next, determine whether the regulations "restrict or prohibit activities for the protection of public
health and safety" as provided in ORS 195.305(3)(b). Many aspects of regulating floodplains are based
on safety; however, some of the regulations in the PICM model ordinance are based on improving fish
habitat. This could result in complicated analysis to determine whether the habitat requirements restrict
development beyond the restriction already created by regulations based on safety.
Next, review the property appraisals submitted by the claimant to determine whether the property
value was actually reduced. Property in a flood hazard area may already have a low value. The property
may still have value for agricultural use which would offset the loss due to the regulation.
If a property owner has a valid claim, then the city or county would decide to pay monetary
compensation or to waive some regulations. The city or county is not required to waive all regulations,
only "to the extent necessary to offset the reduction in the fair market value of the property" ORS
195.310(6)(b). The city or county could still apply regulations based on safety, and could still apply
regulations that existed prior to adopting the PICM model ordinance.
Pathway 2—Permit-by-permit habitat assessment and mitigation
The results would be similar to pathway 1. In most cases the habitat mitigation requirement would not
prevent development, and the owner would likely not be entitled to just compensation. If the habitat
mitigation requirements did prevent development, then the owner could apply for just compensation.
The city or county would use the steps described above to determine whether it is a valid claim, and
decide to waive some of the requirements, or pay monetary compensation.
Pathway 3—Prohibit floodplain development
A temporary moratorium would likely not lead to a claim for just compensation because it is not a new
land use regulation. Also, a temporary moratorium is unlikely to significantly affect fair market value
because potential buyers know that the moratorium will end.
Rezoning to prohibit all development within the SFHA would likely be a basis for a claim for just
compensation, especially for a property entirely within the SFHA. If a property includes area inside and
outside the SFHA, and the owner could still develop the same number of dwellings in a different
location, then the owner would likely not be able to make a claim for just compensation.
The city or county would use the steps described above to determine whether it is a valid claim, and
decide to waive some of the requirements, or pay monetary compensation.
Where can I find additional information r ask questions about I ?
FEMA has a webpage for Endangered Species Act Integration in Oregon. Email questions to the PICM
email address: FEMA-RIO-MIT-PICM21� ma.dhs.gov.
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2024 9 1 P a g e
36
While DLCD staff are not responsible for PICM implementation, we are available to offer technical
assistance. Email or call Oregon's NFIP Coordinator at DLCD, Deanna Wright,
deanna.wriht�dlcd.oreon. ov, 971-718-7473.
What if a city or county received a PICIVIletter in error, or did not receive a PICIVI
letter?
Staff may contact FEMA's PICM inbox at: FEMA-RIO-MIT-PICM@fema.dhs.gov to receive the letter, or
you may contact DLCD staff. FEMA staff sent the email announcements to the city or county floodplain
staff and the letter was mailed to each individual city or county chief elected officer. If you believe your
community is outside of the BiOp action area (map instructions below), but you received a PICM letter,
please contact FEMA PICM inbox for verification.
What area does the BiOpcover?
Below is a snapshot image of the Oregon NFIP BiOp Action Area:
�,ti J �4UdwiWlM� ��r �rzd °��7ur
ad
Kr
do goo' WEl
"
� �,: �
! ""'Mli4M., mrwUk lk%'H
fjCtACKAIKAI
r" i J'�
N r %r
W 11 A "a'a?dU,".i�iC 9�'" S KIE t
r
dl a
�{
�,�,
i
1 /i
�o „
N�
,
IMMALUN
�4
F .
LAKE
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2024 10 Page
37
The BiOp is applicable in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) within the mapped salmon recovery
domains for Oregon communities that participate in the NFIP. The BiOp covers approximately 90
percent of participating Oregon NFIP communities but does not apply to five counties.
NOAA Fisheries OIS mapping application tool
FEMA has published directions on how to determine if a proposed development or project area is within
the BiOp area.
Frequently Asked Questions about Pre-Implementation Compliance Measures
October 4, 2024 111 Page
38
oQ
O F
�w
,7
CN w IS
�0
o ,�
f 1 m 4 ,y fU 8iP C7
' ,. J �a "r� � N co
x nP S. '4w �R .dy
' 4 , 1 'I ✓ v' /rl O O _
�._
o`
u o 4 i
wrry luI °1y„ W y, `a O s E
�V A U w
�M@y IIIII GIN V Gy NII114
�Id
fx
CL
co
vp
lo
In
m
N
w /
O 1"b 4✓� ✓� � xJ � �l illll �
D lJ
X � mTMa Ay
Co / I
00
rvn / r C A ,r, �x r `7•I^wrw'ru�y:jv4�,
/
W OR ( f Y m t
•v r 1 -'v� ' / F r r'`W II ✓ rr- alpCL
�Y �tAU Msr fir ! ° O
al
7
✓ � nnN
u �
4 J ! r
ti
✓� ' ,�r, f { i drd i ry 1 Jj✓� M rn OI N-
i I
�Q U
aJ I 6Jl III Y VV'
u? r I
01 w
a i o LL x
i,i IV .........IO o °
Q w w m
I a
' + ,y`mv� 4" Ak, °�m�If .__. ___ P'4'+✓M w W N N N O
J � LL
r �J
0
o
E
G!? N
wwyy
+1^,e� ','. Nmm�mm^mww,ww^®vo MA rnp i'o'urvv uVWUN�itliWe"'NAM,�,✓VI yy,,,, �M.. ,__ �.�... _ .." 0
0
r
�✓ T a"
I
O
"14 N
r �
VI � � O
U
VI
Ln U o
CN o Sm U
N > e a A A
d o,
' ,� � w LL LL
COUNCIL BILL NO. 3277
RESOLUTION NO. 2249
A RESOLUTION INITIATING CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
TO THE WOODBURN FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE AND WOODBURN
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (WDO)
WHEREAS, the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) establishes the
standards that development is required to meet; and
WHEREAS, the City also maintains a separate ordinance regulating and
constraining development and construction within the flood plain areas of
Woodburn; and
WHEREAS, periodic revisions and updates to the WDO are necessary and
expected to address current issues, revisions to statutes, and to remain consistent
with revised plans; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has identified needed
modifications to the WDO and Flood Plain Management Ordinance necessary for
conformance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) - Endangered Species Act (ESA) Integration in
Oregon; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.10.09 of the WDO requires the City Council to initiate the
consideration of any potential legislative amendments to the WDO by resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 4.01 .09A. of the WDO, the City Council initiates
consideration of legislative amendments to the WDO and Woodburn Flood Plain
Management Ordinance necessary for conformance with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) - Endangered
Species Act (ESA) Integration in Oregon.
Approved as to form:
City Attorney Date
Approved:
Frank Lonergan, Mayor
Page 1 - Council Bill No. 3277
Resolution No. 2249
40
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Heather Pierson, City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 1 - Council Bill No. 3277
Resolution No. 2249
41
4�4?4 4'*7 N
g Pi�e� Item
WTOODBURN
Inc orpornreA 1889
April 14, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM: Anthony Turley, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Award a Contract for Professional Audit Services to Aldrich CPAs +
Advisors LLP.
RECOMMENDATION:
Award a Contract for Professional Audit Services to Aldrich CPAs + Advisors LLP for
an amount not to exceed $416,240.00 over a three (3) year period with the option
for three (3) one year contract extensions, and authorize the City Administrator to
sign the Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The City has used REDW and its predecessor Grove, Mueller and Swank as the
professional audit firm for the audit of the City and URA for the past 10 years.
Although they have performed this function with professional care and diligence,
Government Finance Officer Association best practices recommend that
municipalities go out for proposals every 5-7 years. To that end, City staff published
a Request for Proposals (RFP) for audit services on February 18, 2025. The RFP was
published and distributed to four qualified audit firms in the state of Oregon as well
as being placed on the City website where bids and other notices are regularly
posted. On March 14th staff received 3 proposals for audit services. The three firms
responding were as follows:
• REDW Advisors & CPAs
• SingerLewak Accountants & Consultants
• Aldrich CPAs + Advisors LLP
All three firms submitted complete proposals with no variance requested.
Interviews were conducted in the council chambers at City Hall on Wednesday
March 26, 2025. At the conclusion of the interviews a team consisting of three City
staff and two City Council members reviewed and scored the proposals based on
the criteria outlined in the RFP. The results of the scoring were as follows:
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_X City Attorney_X Finance_X_
42
Honorable Mayor and City Council
April 14, 2025
Page 2
City Of Woodburn
Audit RFP Evaluation Scoring
Wednesday, March 26,2025
Evaluation Criteria REDW Singer Lewak Aldrich
Firms Municipal Audit Experience(Max30) 15 25 30
Audit Approach and Schedule(Max 20) 15 18 20
References(Max 20) 20 20 20
Fees For Services(Max 20) 5 20 15
Differentiators(Max 10) 5 9 10
Total Score 60 92 95
DISCUSSION:
The scope of work includes a thorough audit of the City of Woodburn Financial
Statement and the Woodburn Urban Renewal Agency Financial Statement, as well
as drafting and delivery of required audit reports and documents. Consulting
services related to financial issues will also be provided under the Agreement.
The contract award is in conformance with public contracting laws of the State of
Oregon as outlined in ORS Chapter 279B and the laws, and regulations of the City
of Woodburn.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
2025 2026 2027 2029 2029 2039
City of WoocibUrn Financial Statement Audit 47,,999 49,,700 51,,700 53,,750 55,,999 58,,695
LIRA Financial Statement AL,Idit 5,999 5,209 5,499 5,999 5,925 9,,959
Single Audit 9,999 19,399 19,799 11,125 11,579 12,025
Total 62,799 95,209 67,999 70,475 73,295 79,779
For the 2023-24 audit cycle the city paid REDW $71,500 which did not include a
single audit. The fees proposed by Aldrich will result in a savings to the city of
approximately $19,000 for the 2024-25 audit with increased savings annually.
43
WWODBURN
Ig
�9c!k Item
Inc orpornreA 1889
April 14, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
From: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director 6'A",
Dan Handel, Planner
Subject: Council Briefing of Planning Commission approval of a Design Review
application for "Checkpoint 211 Food Cart Pod" at 2010 Molalla Road
(Tax Lot 051 W08DA00400)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council take no action on this item and provides
this summary pursuant to Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) Section
4.02.02. The Council may call up this item if desired and, by majority vote, initiate
a review of the Planning Commission decision.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
The subject property is 2010 Molalla Road, an undeveloped 2.48-acre site in the
Commercial Office (CO) zoning district.
The proposal was a Design Review application to develop the property with a
food cart pod including 18 food cart spaces, two dining hall buildings totaling
9,308 square feet, a 107-stall parking lot, stormwater detention facilities, and site
landscaping improvements.
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x_ City Attorney x_ Finance_x_
44
Honorable Mayor and City Council
April 14, 2025 (Briefing of Planning Commission Approval of DR 25-01)
Page 2
al,,
„
,� ¢ i
5''� � r
IM,thrt clr� o ww`✓y W d p'"' m - m „wr mws www � a .�.v
yI r N}nGA /
d �a I I AFRGCIE
LAN
z
.. t i
n w rJ
JMd
a
„I II I n � II r w iit
d
ICI^ ^I^
f a, .. 4
�,
Il
M--
ATE
m
9 r N PARKING
7 U
ry STANDARD 96 sp s spaces
_
r
s um
COMPACT 11 p es
} g ' TOTAL 107 spaces
s E.er rucv rn_s
h
� " 1 „ SITE LANDSCAPE PLANK.
Proposed site plan
PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY:
On March 27, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for this Type III
application. Written testimony was received from Pat Langford at 1501 June Way;
while not explicitly stating opposition to the project, she expressed concern about
traffic congestion along Molalla Road in this area. Neutral testimony was received
at the hearing from Shane Parker at 1510 N. Pacific Hwy; he requested standing
and inquired about potential disruptions to utilities while the proposed
development was under construction.
After closure of the record, the Commission deliberated, discussed Ms. Langford's
testimony, and ultimately voted unanimously to approve the application with the
conditions recommended by staff in the staff report.
45