Clatsop County hears FEMAupdates on draft flood-risk maps, levy accreditation and biological-opinion schedule

Gail, the county—s community development director, told the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners at a work session that FEMA released preliminary flood-insurance risk maps in July and a draft environmental impact statement tied to a FEMA biological opinion will be released for public comment this Friday, with the comment period closing on October 6.

The county—s planning director said the preliminary maps add new special flood hazard areas and velocity zones along the coast and in portions of Warrenton, Astoria, Tongue Point and Brownsmead. She said the proposed maps could add "over a thousand new structures to the special flood hazard area" and that the county—s fairgrounds would be assigned a base flood elevation of 12 feet; any new development there would have to be built at least 1 foot above that elevation.

The briefing underscored two related processes: (1) FEMA—s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and its schedule for public comment and final decision on a biological opinion intended to achieve "no net loss" of wetlands and floodplain function, and (2) FEMA—s ongoing mapping work and a separate, multistep levee-accreditation process that affects base flood elevations and building requirements.

Why this matters: The preliminary maps would impose additional building and elevation requirements in coastal communities and in unincorporated areas; velocity-zone designations also add structural and elevation standards that increase development costs. Commissioners raised concerns about the potential economic and practical impacts on cities, the port and the county—s limited buildable land.

Gail said FEMA began mapping the estuary and river mouth areas in 2009 and that the federal agency released the updated maps and revised flood-insurance studies on July 17. She said FEMA has scheduled a virtual meeting for September 5 at 9 a.m. to discuss next steps and levee-accreditation work. She added FEMA—s timeline for formal adoption is uncertain and, depending on funding, could be more than a year away.

Commissioner Thompson asked whether changes reflected mapping of previously unstudied areas and whether levee accreditation or new base flood elevations were driving the additions; Gail said many areas had never had a base flood elevation established and that some changes appear tied to levee accreditation status. She used the county public works facility on Olney Avenue and the fairgrounds as illustrations: the public-works site had been in an A zone with no established base-flood elevation; the proposed study has assigned specific base flood elevations. In the fairgrounds example Gail said FEMA did not provide credit for the existing dike and assigned a 12-foot base flood elevation, while removing an elevated parking lot from the special flood hazard area.

Commissioners discussed options for challenging or appealing the maps. Gail said jurisdictions may collaborate on appeals or pursue challenges individually; each city and the county would later adopt their own flood insurance rate maps once FEMA posts a final letter and adoption schedule. She reminded the board that the last significant coastal map update occurred in 2018 following an earlier challenge and restudy.

On the biological opinion and related regulation, Gail said FEMA previously told jurisdictions to select a pre-implementation compliance measure (PICM) by Dec. 1 and implement it by July 31; the county notified FEMA it would consider adopting a model ordinance but has not acted. FEMA extended an initial deadline and has required jurisdictions to begin data collection for mandatory reporting starting Jan. 1, 2026. Gail said FEMA unexpectedly released a draft EIS for public comment this week; the public comment period closes Oct. 6. After the final EIS and a Record of Decision, FEMA would send each jurisdiction a formal letter; the draft EIS states jurisdictions would then have eight months to submit a review path and 18 months to adopt regulations once FEMA approves a path.

Commissioners asked about partnerships with the port (which will fall under City of Astoria maps), the state—s role and how long accreditation takes. Gail said the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has an NFIP coordinator who has served as a liaison but that DLCD is not responsible for implementing the biological opinion; FEMA enforces compliance with local jurisdictions. She said levee accreditation is a multi-phase, lengthy and costly process and that cities and the county should coordinate with the Army Corps, FEMA and each other where possible.

Commissioners also discussed longer-term adaptation strategies such as relocating infrastructure to higher ground, acquiring land and state-level policy responses; several commissioners emphasized limited buildable land and the high costs of either repeated appeals or large-scale levee projects.

The board did not take formal action at the work session. Staff said they will circulate the FEMA meeting invite and staff will review the draft EIS and prepare comments for the board to consider during the public comment window.

Ending: Commissioners agreed to continue coordinating with cities, the port and state liaisons and asked staff to bring the Sept. 5 FEMA meeting information and the draft EIS to the board for review and potential comment.