Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OWEB monitoring staff warn demand far exceeds available monitoring funds
Summary
OWEB staff told the board that open monitoring solicitations drew 34 applications requesting ~ $7.2 million while about $2.5 million per year is available, and described how monitoring grants (open solicitation, FIP, programmatic) support adaptive restoration decisions across Oregon.
OWEB staff presented an overview of the agency's monitoring investments and grant programs, saying monitoring is distributed across multiple spending-plan categories (open solicitation monitoring grants, programmatic effectiveness monitoring, FIP/initiative monitoring, and strategic implementation area monitoring) and that those investments support adaptive management and state-level decisions.
Ken Fetcho (effectiveness monitoring coordinator) said the summer open-solicitation cycle received 34 applications requesting roughly $7.2 million while OWEB currently has about $2.5 million available per year for open-monitoring awards (roughly $5.0 million for the biennium). Staff noted the average award size has risen since 2021 and that applicants increasingly request water-temperature, streamflow, wetland and upland monitoring. Courtney Schaff and staff explained the review process (regional review and ranking) and stressed the practicality of fully funding review-team recommended projects rather than partially funding them, which creates scope and administration complications.
Staff highlighted examples across the state: long-term basin monitoring (Umpqua), tidal/wetland monitoring and tide-gate guidance (coastal projects), innovative fire-effects monitoring integrating Indigenous knowledge (Willamette Valley), and freshwater-mussel and streamflow gauge efforts in eastern Oregon. They also described programmatic work that produced a tide-gate monitoring handbook and other shared tools that make data more useful for state and federal partners.
Board members asked about data availability and whether monitoring results are compiled for practitioners; staff said Agness/OWEB project records and final reports are searchable, but cross-project synthesis (for example, querying everyone's vegetation-response monitoring) often requires additional staff time or a targeted synthesis project.
Staff emphasized that monitoring data are regularly routed to partners (DEQ, ODFW, USGS) and that grant agreements require grantees to share datasets and project-completion reports so monitoring can inform TMDLs, adaptive management, and statewide priorities.
