Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany floodplain manager outlines FEMA/NFIP changes, draft EIS comment period and local steps
Summary
City floodplain manager Jennifer Cappello briefed council on National Flood Insurance Program participation, a FEMA biological opinion and draft EIS affecting Oregon floodplain policy, and the city’s selected pre-implementation compliance measure (permit-by-permit habitat assessment).
Jennifer Cappello, Albany’s floodplain manager, briefed the council on Sept. 22 about changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the city’s Community Rating System participation, and a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) tied to a 2016 FEMA Biological Opinion that could change local floodplain rules.
Cappello said Albany’s floodplain covers about 1,458 acres and contains approximately 411 buildings. Over the past year the city issued two building permits for new structures within special flood hazard areas and two other development permits (a fence in the floodway and expansion of an existing public lift station off Spring Hill Road). Albany is in the NFIP Community Rating System and holds a class 5 rating, which Cappello said provides roughly a 25% discount on community flood-insurance premiums.
Cappello explained that a FEMA Biological Opinion (BiOp) tied to Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance has prompted an implementation plan and a requirement that participating Oregon communities select a pre-implementation compliance measure (PICM). At the conclusion of Albany’s Oct. 2024 council meeting, the council directed staff to use the permit-by-permit habitat assessment option as the city’s PICM.
She said FEMA issued a draft EIS on Aug. 7, 2025, opening a public comment period from Aug. 22 to Oct. 6, 2025. The draft EIS lays out four possible compliance paths: (a) adopt a FEMA model ordinance that contains required elements, (b) submit an ordinance checklist showing existing local regulations meet required elements, (c) complete and implement a FEMA-approved customized community plan, or (d) implement a community-level habitat conservation plan approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service under ESA Section 10. Cappello noted communities can adopt different paths for different areas and can change paths over time.
The draft EIS introduces a riparian buffer zone (RBZ) that extends 170 feet inland from the ordinary high-water mark and proposes mitigation ratios keyed to impacts within the RBZ, in the floodway, and in fringe areas. Cappello said the draft EIS’ proxies for floodplain function impacts include flood-storage capacity, impervious surface, and tree/vegetation loss; mitigation methods are keyed to those proxies.
She told the council that if the draft EIS becomes final with few changes, the city would have 18 months to adopt required regulations to meet the final decision. The draft EIS includes virtual and in-person public meetings and a virtual “room” of materials; Cappello encouraged councilors and residents to review the documents and contact her with technical questions.
Councilors asked no substantive questions during the work session; Cappello offered to brief councilors one-on-one on technical aspects.
No action was taken at the work session; the public comment period for the draft EIS remains open through Oct. 6, 2025, according to Cappello’s presentation.
