FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Project Application ID:
Funding Request:
Matching Share:
Total Project Cost:
2009-010
$43,125
$47,001
$90,126
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE GRANT PROPOSAL
Applicant Information
1
Applicant/Organization
Type of Applicant:
Contact Person:
Address: PO Box 247
City Philomath
Phone:
FAX:
Phone (Work/Cell):
Email:
Philomath Fire and Rescue
Municipal
Tom Phelps, Chief
State Oregon
Zip: 97370
Ext.
Call Ahead for FAX:
541-929-3002
541-929-5911
tom.phelps@philomathfire.com
Project Information
2
Name of Project: Mary's River Estates WUI Hazardous Fuels Reduction
Proposed Start Date: 6/1/08
Proposed End Date:
City: Philomath
State:
County: Benton
Congressional District:
Latitude (decimal degrees): 44.5488
Longitude (decimal degrees):
Please indicate planned treatments and associated acres
12/31/09
Oregon
4
-123.3922
645
Total Actual Project Acres:
Treatment (1)
Acres
Treatment (2)
Acres
Total Treatment Acres
Biomass Removal
121
Mastication/Mowing
121
Treatment (3)
Acres
Treatment (4)
Acres
277
HandPile Burn
35
0
Treatment (5)
Acres
Treatment (6)
Acres
Cost Per Acre
0
0
Treatment (other-A) Acres
Treatment (other-B)
Acres
$ 325.36
0
0
Please indicate how this project relates to a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP):
This community has a wildfire protection plan that follows the Healthy Forest Restoration Act
CWPP guidelines.
yes
This project is identified in the CWPP.
yes
Name of CWPP CWPP for Mary's River Estates, Philomath, OR 2007
Name of Community at Mary's River Estates, Philomath, OR
Risk:
Page 1
Project Area Description
All information for the project must fit into the space provided below. Attachments will not be considered by the review committee.
3
Provide a brief overview of the project and the project area. (If applying for a fuels reduction
project, identify vegetation types, fire regime) [1500 Characters Maximum]
Mary’s River Estates (MRE) is an unincorporated community in the hills just 2 miles NW of the
city of Philomath. Although not thought of as a high risk for wildfires, western Oregon has areas
which are high risk. Droughty summers and an abundance of fuels increase this risk.
In 2006, the NFP funded a request to prepare a CWPP for Mary’s River Estates. Subsequently the
CWPP (http://www.marysriver.philomath.or.us/MR_Wildfire.pdf) was completed and published in
2007. As part of the analysis for the CWPP, a FlamMap™ analysis was conducted, which revealed
that during periods of moderate fire weather conditions, surface fires would occur across 100% of
the analysis area and passive crown fires would occur on 25% of the area. Under extreme fire
weather conditions, passive crown fires would increase 51% of the area and active crown fires
would effect 22% of the area. In addition, the CWPP identified that over 74% of the structures in the
community had a high or extreme hazard rating because of inadequate defensible space. Risk of
ignition is high in and around the community. ODF statistics reveal that over the past ten years, 13
fires have occurred within a 1.5 mile radius of the project area. Although small and quickly
controlled, these fires had the potential to cause a conflagration with the MRE.
The primary vegetation types we propose to treat as part of this grant is white oak/coniferous forest
type. The goal will be to reduce the amount of conifer basal area in these stands.
Project Timeline
All information for the project must fit into the space provided below. Attachments will not be considered by the review committee.
4
Provide a timeline for the project. [500 Characters Maximum]
Summer 2009 -- Landowner outreach
Summer 2009 - Fall 2010 -- On the ground inplementation
Page 2
Scope of Work
All information for the project must fit into the space provided below. Attachments will not be considered by the review committee.
5
Provide a brief scope of work which clearly describes how grant funds will be spent. (This
should be more specific than the project description) [1500 Characters Maximum]
The MRE CWPP describes three general treatments to reduce the risk of crown fire in the
community. These include: reduction of understory fine fuels; thinning from below; and pruning
and tree removal. Furthermore, the CWPP provides detailed stand specific, silvicultural
prescriptions, which are designed to prevent crown fires from occurring during moderate and high
fire behavior weather. These prescriptions will be the basis for treating the stands. Specific
treatment will include: thinning from below; brush mastication; pruning; hand piling and burning;
and biomass removal. Generally speaking, stands will be thinned from below to reduce the canopy
bulk density to a level where an active crown fire would be improbable; trees would be pruned to
prevent passive crown fires; and understory mastication would occur to reduce ground fire intensity,
flame length and spread rate. Wherever possible, retention of fire resilient Oregon White Oak will
be favored over coniferous species.
Currently the fire regime in the project area is a Fire Regime Group II, through fuels reduction this
fire regime will be changed to a Fire Regime Group I, which will allow for a defensible community.
In addition, defensible space treatments will be implemented around each structure to the FireWise
standards. This combination of both landscape and defensible treatment will allow the community
to survive relatively unscathed through a major wildfire event.
Interagency Collaboration
All information for the project must fit into the space provided below. Attachments will not be considered by the review committee.
6
Specify the private, local, tribal, county, state, federal and/or non-governmental [501(c)(3)]
organizations that will contribute to or participate in the completion of this project. Describe
briefly the contributions each partner will make (i.e. – donating time/equipment, funding, etc.)
[500 Characters Maximum]
Philomath Fire and Rescue – Overall project supervision, fiscal agent, manpower contribution.
Forest Restoration Partnership – Project implementation, project management, outreach, manpower,
equipment, GIS services contribution.
Mary’s River Estates Property Owners Association (MREPOA) – Landowner outreach, manpower
contribution.
Oregon Department of Forestry – Education, landowner outreach, manpower contribution.
Individual Landowners – In-Kind contributions
Siuslaw National Forest – Support
Page 3
Project Longevity / Maintenance
All information for the project must fit into the space provided below. Attachments will not be considered by the review committee.
7
Clearly describe how the proposed treatments will be maintained over time. [500 Characters
Maximum]
The MREPOA is a well organized and is committed to educating the landowners on the long term
maintenance of the treatment area. Already, over 20 landowners have expressed interest in reducing
fuels in the community and have committed to maintaining the treatments in the future. The
treatments are designed in such a way to reduce the amount of work necessary in the future to
maintain them.
Biomass Utilization
All information for the project must fit into the space provided below. Attachments will not be considered by the review committee.
For the purpose of this application, biomass utilization is defined as any practicable end-use of the material that
has value, or the trading of capital for the woody material.
8
Biomass from treatment(s) will be utilized. (check one)
yes
no
1) If yes, how is it planned to be used, or what is the end-result (wood products, steam/energy,
mulch etc.) [500 Characters Maximum]
Saw logs and pulp logs will be hauled to the local mills in the Philomath area.
Roseburg Forest Products (RFP) is very active in the area in regards to biomass utilization. It is
anticipated that the majority of the biomass what cannot be marketed as logs or pulp will be chipped
and hauled to RFP facility in Dillard, Oregon to be burned in the boilers of their cogen facility.
2) Identify company or contractors involved in project utilization. [250 Characters Maximum]
Davis Logging; Integrated Resource Management; Melcher Logging; and Rosario Franco
Reforestation; and T2 Tub Grinding
3) Estimate anticipated value of biomass to be removed ($/Green Ton; $/Bone-dry Ton;
$/Hundred Cubic Feet (CCF), $/Acre Treated) [250 Characters Maximum]
$20 - 45/green ton
Page 4
Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Matching Share
Applicant
landowners
FRP
Total
Personnel
$0.00
Project Manager
$2,500.00
Ass. Project Manager
Subtotal $2,500.00
$2,500.00
$0.00
$2,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$5,000.00
$625.00
$0.00
$625.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$625.00
$625.00
$1,250.00
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal $0.00
$826.00
$0.00
$826.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,100.00
$0.00
$1,100.00
$1,926.00
$0.00
$1,926.00
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal $0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal $0.00
$650.00
$100.00
$750.00
$0.00
$100.00
$100.00
$0.00
$100.00
$100.00
$650.00
$300.00
$950.00
$40,000.00
$0.00
Subtotal $40,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$40,000.00
$0.00
$40,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal $0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$35,000.00
$0.00
$35,000.00
$0.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$35,000.00
$4,000.00
$39,000.00
Fringe Benefits
$0.00
Project Manager
$625.00
Ass. Project Manager
Subtotal $625.00
Travel
Mileage
Equipment
Chainsaws
Supplies
Burn Fuel
Misc
Contractual
Fuels Reduction Services
Other
Forest Products
GIS Mapping
Total Costs
$43,125.00
$4,701.00
$36,100.00
$6,200.00
$90,126.00
Project (Program) Income1
(using deductive alternative)
1
Program income is the gross revenue generated by a grant or cooperative agreement supported activity during the life of the grant.
Program income can be made by recipients from fees charged for conference or workshop attendance, from rental fees earned from
renting out real property or equipment acquired with grant or cooperative agreement funds, or from the sale of commodities or items
developed under the grant or cooperative agreement. The use of Program Income during the project period may require prior
approval by the granting agency.
Page 5