ID Number 2007-28
Fuels Treatment Projects Application
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE PROJECTS
Applicant
Applicant/Organization:
State of Ore. Dept. of Forestry., C.O.D., The Dalles
Type of Applicant:
A (State)
Email:
msmith@odf.state.or.us, djacobs@odf.state.or.us
Phone:
503-945-7341
FAX:
503-945-7416
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Mr. David Jacobs, The Dalles Unit Forester
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Oregon Dept. of Forestry
Email:
djacobs@odf.state.or.us
Phone:
541-296-4626 Ext. 222
FAX:
541-298-4993
Project Information
Project Title:
South Wasco County Communities
Project Location:
Wasco County, Oregon
County:
Wasco
Congressional District:
2
Latitude:
45.31789
Longitude:
121.296
State the desired outcome in relation to NFP Goals and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Project Objectives:
Funds will be utilized for vegetation management to create defensible space, reduce fire hazard and improve forest health in the adjoining timber stands by
providing financial assistance to non-industrial landowners in South Wasco Co. This area is at extreme risk from wildfire due to the increase in rural
residences, and the significant role westerly winds play in creating extreme fire behavior. The CWPP rates Sportsman Paradise highest of communities at
risk in Wasco County due to IA response times, ingress egress, fuels conditions and water supply. The communities of Pine Hollow, Wamic, Sportsman Park
and Tygh Valley are also rated as high risks. The CWPP puts a high priority on allocating dollars for defensible space and hazardous fuels reductions in these
areas. This grant is capable of treating approximately 350 ac. Federal projects include Sportsman Park fuels treatment (1700 ac), and the Swisher underburn
(800 ac, 2005). BIA and BLM lands are adjacent to this project as well
Name of CWPP:
Wasco County Oregon Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Name of Communit(y/ies) at Risk:
Sports Paradis, Pine Hollow, Rk. Creek, Pine Grove. Dufur, Tygh Val.
Proposed Project Start Date:
06/30/2007
Proposed Project End Date:
12/30/2009
Federal Funding Request:
$200,000.00
Total Project Cost:
$273,385.00
Are you submitting multiple projects?
Yes
If YES indicate the relationship of the projects to one
another:
A (Stand Alone)
If YES, please list the titles of projects by priority and briefly explain their relationship.
South Wasco Co. is prioritized at #3 because its a stand alone project however remains a high priority due to the fact that ODF has dedicated Bark Beetle
Mitigation dollars in this area in an effort to reduce stand density, promote forest health, and reduce fuel loading. Mosier Grant priority #2. This area is
adjacent to previously funded NFP grant projects. Seven Mile Continuation priority #1. This is a continuation fund request to treat lands in a previously
funded grant area.
Name of Federal, State or Tribal contact with whom you coordinated this
proposal:
Organization/Jurisdiction:
1) Jim Wrightson
Mt. Hood National Forest
Phone
503-667-1757
2) Mike Bennefield
Phone
Bureau of Land Management - Prineville
541-416-6748
Email Mike_Benefield@or.blm.gov
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
3) Gary Cooke
Phone
Email jwrightson@fs.fed.us
541-553-2413
Email gcooke@warmsprings.org
Project Planning Information
Name of Local Coordinating Group:
Gorge Wildfire Local Coordinating Group
For this project, explain the level of cooperation, coordination or strategic planning, through a "Local Coordination Group." If you have not worked with a
local coordination group, why not?
This proposal has been given a high priority by the Gorge Wildfire Local Coordinating Group.
List federal lands that are adjacent to the project and proximity.
Mt. Hood National Forest., Warm Springs Tribe, BLM Prineville
A) Is there a current hazardous fuels treatment or one that is planned in the next three years on federal land that is adjacent to this project?
Yes
B) Specifically is this project adjacent to a current prescribed burn project or one that is planned in the next three years on Forest Service lands?
Yes
Please indicate planned treatments and associated acres:
Treatment
Thinning
Acres
350
Treatment
Mastication/Mowing
Acres
100
Treatment
Machine Pile
Acres
100
Treatment
Hand Pile Burn
Acres
150
Treatment
Acres
0
If you have a treatment type other than standard types above:
Treatment
Acres
0
Project Evaluation Criteria
Applications for funding must include narrative responses that address the following criteria. Be sure you address every one briefly, yet thoroughly.
1. Reducing Hazardous Fuels (40 points)
A. Describe the community infrastructure that will be protected. This should include how this project implements all or part of the CWPP strategy. (15
points)
Response:
The proposed project will in effect create a community fuel break around the communities of Friend, Pine Hollow,
Sportsman Park and Pine Grove, all considered communities at risk. If funded this grant will aid in getting
contiguous tracts of property treated. The potential infrastructure that will be protected includes homes, businesses
and personal property; as well as power and phone lines and travel corridors. The strategy in the CWPP puts a high
priority on allocating dollars for defensible space and hazard fuels reduction in these areas. The MHNF is conducting
adjacent projects.
B. Explain how the proposal reduces fire behavior in high hazard areas by describing the fuels to be disposed or removed, the techniques and timing of the
treatments, and the treatment location relative to the values to be protected. (15 points)
Response:
The infestation of the Mountain and Western Pine Beetle is evident across much of this landscape. The result is an
accumulation of natural fuels buildup, too many stems per acre that results in poor forest health due to overcrowding.
These funds would be used to cost share with the landowner for the total treatment of the site with the objective of
reducing the fuel hazard and improving forest health. These areas would be precommercially thinned in the spring and
summer and remaining slash would be abated in late fall or early winter. Most of the treatments will be near rural
residences.
C. Explain how the project is designed to reduce smoke production impacts that affect public health. (10 points)
Response:
ODF is working with several vendors who are interested in utilizing alternative products in lieu of burning. Some of
these products include hog fuel for sawmills and a Co-gen plant being built in Warm Springs, commercial firewood
for use in lodges and restaurants, and poles. In the past much of the material has been utilized as fire wood in local
residences. There are ongoing projects utilizing slash busters. We anticipate a significant reduction in slash burning as
we improve these alternate uses, which will therefore minimize burning. This area is not designated smoke sensitive.
2. Increasing Local Capacity (20 points)
A. How would the implementation of the proposed project improve or lead to the improvement of the local economy in terms of jobs and sustainable
economic activity assuming that these grant funds would be used as "seed monies" for future projects. i.e. How many community supported jobs would be
created and for how long would they expect to last? (10 points)
Response:
This project will help a depressed economy in Wasco County, especially the timber industry and has the potential to
support other forest related jobs. This is a sustainable economic activity due to the ability to utilize smaller material
and assist to make it economical to treat these private non-industrial lands. This project would potentially be the seed
money to keep 30-50 personnel seasonally employed for approximately 2-3 years including approximately 20 from
previous grants.
B. Will biomass that is produced by the project be utilized; if so, in what manner and how much? (10 points)
Response:
The potential for removal of biomass will depend on the specific site. There is an increased interest from vendors on
product removal if economically feasible for chips, hog fuel for local sawmills, Co-Gen plant and commercial fuel
wood opportunities. The amount of material varies from site to site and estimates vary from 25-75 tons/acre to be
removed. Utilization of biomass will be the encouraged and preferred practice. Several vendors are currently working
with ODF on biomass utilization.
3. Demonstrating Community and Intergovernmental Collaboration (20 Points)
A. Describe how this project has been collaborated and coordinated with adjacent landowners, local/state/Tribal/federal agencies, and community groups
such as neighborhood associations. (10 points)
Response:
Coordination and collaboration exists between local, state, and federal agencies in the development of the CWPP,
efforts to identify and prioritize wildfire hazards within the county, and to develop a strategy to reduce those hazards.
Coordination exists between landowners, Wasco County, Mt. Hood National Forest, Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs, BLM Prineville, Mid Col Fire Prev Coop, as well as several local volunteer RFD's in the planning and
implementation of fuels treatment project
B. Describe the communities/partners contributions to this project such as: cash or in-kind contributions, cost share agreements, equipment, or labor
(including volunteer work). (10 points)
Response:
Wasco county contributed Title III funds for the completion of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Matching
funds will be a combination of ODF's and supporting agencies in kind work on the project planning, implementation,
and administration. Cost share agreements will be made with participating landowners where they are expected to
commit up to 20% of the project costs either through in kind services or out of pocket expenses.
4. Managing Cost Efficiency (20 points)
Discuss the process you used to arrive at your cost structure for the main Project Budget areas such as personnel, equipment, supplies and other (i.e.
overhead). In your response please justify: cost per acre, purchase of equipment, percent of overhead, percent of partner or matching funds, and portion of
administration cost. (20 points)
Response:
Personnel costs are based upon one Forester for 12 months at 1/2 time, other payroll expenses (OPE) are computed at
45% and come directly from ODF's fiscal budgeting direction. This will allow the Forester to spend time in initial sign
ups for the grant, monitoring progress, and then allowing for final inspections and payments to the landowners. It is
expected the personnel costs will be sufficient to carry through the life of the grant 3-4 years. Equipment will consist
of mileage and vehicle costs associated with getting the Forester to and from the field and any associated meetings or
training. Supplies will consist of various items to support the grant either office or field use. ODF's cost matching
contribution will exceed $35,000 or 18% of the total grant. The cost share rates are based upon historic costs and will
average $550/acre to the landowner. Landowners are expected to match up to 20% of costs to accomplish the project
work totaling $32,000 or 16% of the total grant. Matching administrative funds will be based upon the Unit managers
time at 8% per year over 4 years plus OPE. Matching vehicle costs at will cover the administration, maintenance and
replacement of the vehicle. There will be a Salem cost of 3% total grant and a miscellaneous indirect cost of 5% of
personnel services. Additionally the local fire district is expected to contribute up to $5,000 in matching funds.
Project Work Form
Tasks
Identify landowners and direct mail grant
information. Set up community meeting for
landowners in the grant area.
Time Frame
June - November 2007
Responsible Party
NFP Coordinator Stewardship Forester Unit
Forester
Arrange for site visit to landowners interested in
grants. Do hazard assessment and determine
activities. If parcel meets criteria sign up
landowners
October - December 2007
NFP Coordinator Stewardship Forester
Monitor projects, document activities for future
educational opportunities, check for compliance,
and verify work accomplishments, process
payments.
Oct 2007 - Oct 2009
NFP Coordinator Stewardship Forester
Provide for public displays of project
accomplishments to encourage further fuels
treatment work. Develop public prevention displays
for local use.
Oct 2007 - Oct 2009
NFP Coordinator Stewardship Forester
Provide accomplishment reporting to federal
funding agencies as needed.
End of grant cycle
NFP Coordinator Unit Forester
Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Applicant
Local RFDs
Landowner
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Total
Personnel
$19,630.00
$20,070.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$44,700.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19,630.00
$20,070.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$44,700.00
$8,835.00
$9,030.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$17,865.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,835.00
$9,030.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$17,865.00
$1,250.00
$4,335.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,585.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,250.00
$4,335.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,585.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
$161,385.00
$0.00
$0.00
$32,000.00
$0.00
$193,385.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$161,385.00
$0.00
$0.00
$32,000.00
$0.00
$193,385.00
Indirect costs 5% of PS
$1,400.00
$1,450.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,850.00
Salem Admin 3%
$6,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6,000.00
$7,400.00
$1,450.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,850.00
$200,000.00
$36,385.00
$5,000.00
$32,000.00
$0.00
$273,385.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Forester/NFP Coordinator
Subtotal
Fringe Benefits
OPE @ 54%
Subtotal
Travel
Vehicle miles 4800 @ .26
Subtotal
Equipment
Subtotal
Supplies
Field and miscellaneous
Subtotal
Contractual
Landowner CS Agreements
Subtotal
Other
Subtotal
Total Costs
Project (Program) Income 1
(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.