Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Funding Requests topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press OWEB to fund Harney springs monitoring, Kelly Creek dam removal and rangeland project
Summary
During public comment, multiple organizations urged the board to fund technical assistance and restoration projects including the Kelly Creek Dam removal (project 2273024), Warm Springs Valley spring monitoring (project 22751825...), and the Upper Muddy Creek rangeland restoration (project 4006).
A series of public commenters used the board's public‑comment period to request funding or to explain why specific projects warrant OWEB support.
Carson Kendrick, conservation director for the Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts, summarized statewide land‑trust conservation achievements and highlighted the sector’s role in projects that can complement OWEB investments. Kelly Beamer (East Multnomah SWCD) advocated for the Kelly Creek Dam removal technical assistance application (project 2273024) submitted by Mount Hood Community College, telling the board that recent partner awards (an ODFW TA award of about $197,400 and a private Metro construction grant) reduce OWEB’s remaining ask and increase the project's leverage: "Removing the dam would remove a hot water pollutant, open up miles of habitat for fish, and also bring that cold water down into the system."
Abby Forrest spoke on behalf of the Washington Family Ranch about the Upper Muddy Creek rangeland health project (project 4006), describing it as a scalable, shovel‑ready juniper removal and spring development effort with strong partner support. Virtual commenters urged funding for springs monitoring in Harney County (Warm Springs Valley TA application 22751825...), arguing that a standardized, repeatable springs monitoring manual is timely after the Harney Basin's designation as a critical groundwater area.
Board members asked clarifying questions about project numbers, matching funds and whether review‑team concerns could be resolved; staff noted some applications were recommended by review teams but fell below the funding line because of overall pacing and evaluation comments.
