ID Number 2007-40
Fuels Treatment Projects Application
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE PROJECTS
Applicant
Applicant/Organization:
State of Oregon Department of Forestry, COD, John Day
Type of Applicant:
A (State)
Email:
msmith@odf.state.or.us/dgustaveson@odf.state.or.us
Phone:
503-945-7341
FAX:
503-945-7416
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
2600 State St Salem, OR 97310
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Ms. MaryHelen Smith, Grant Coord/Dustin Gustaveson Field Coord
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Oregon Department of Forestry, COD, John Day
Email:
msmith@odf.state.or.us/ dgustaveson@odf.state.or.us
Phone:
503-945-7341
FAX:
503-945-7416
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Project Information
Project Title:
Canyon City Fuels Reduction
Project Location:
Grant County, Oregon
County:
Grant
Congressional District:
2
Latitude:
44.3922
Longitude:
118.9484
State the desired outcome in relation to NFP Goals and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Project Objectives:
As identified in the CWPP, the Canyon City community has a hazard rating of high as at risk to wildfires. The desired outcome of this project is to modify
stand conditions to lower the risk of a stand replacement fire. The resulting stand will be tolerant of a low intensity fire, will be a healthy and fire resistant
forest, and provide protection to the infrastructure of the community. This project will also help create fuel conditions which can be maintained through the
introduction of prescibed fire throughout the future. This project will treat 385 acres of forestland in the community which will tie together to create a
community fuel break for the 250+ homes in the area. There is a strong landowner interest in the area to participate in such a project. Adjacent Federal
Projects: Little Canyon Mountain Fuels Reduction, Canyon Creek WUI(surrounds project area), Pine Ck Hazard Fuels Reduction.
Name of CWPP:
Grant County CWPP
Name of Communit(y/ies) at Risk:
Canyon City
Proposed Project Start Date:
06/30/2007
Proposed Project End Date:
12/31/2009
Federal Funding Request:
$200,000.00
Total Project Cost:
$340,376.00
Are you submitting multiple projects?
Yes
If YES indicate the relationship of the projects to one another:
If YES, please list the titles of projects by priority and briefly explain their relationship.
The Oregon Department of Forestry is submitting multiple applications.
Name of Federal, State or Tribal contact with whom you coordinated this
proposal:
Organization/Jurisdiction:
1) Laura Mayer
Malheur National Forest
Phone
541-575-3000
Email lmayer@fs.fed.us
2) Linda Brown
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Phone
Email jdborestoration@ortelco.net
3) Kevin Donham
BLM Prairie Division Chief
Phone
541-416-6421
Email kdonham@fs.fed.us
A (Stand Alone)
Project Planning Information
Name of Local Coordinating Group:
Grant County CWPP coordination 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 project was identified, rated,and prioritized as part of the coordination of the CWPP
List federal lands that are adjacent to the project and proximity.
Malhuer NF and BLM Prineville District
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
250
Treatment
Broadcast Burn
Acres
150
Treatment
Machine Pile
Acres
250
Treatment
Mastication/Mowing
Acres
50
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:
Canyon City (250+ homes)is the most populated community in Grant County and includes numerous private land
parcels in and adjacent to NF and BLM lands with homes, outbuildings, businesses, and other personal property on
these parcels. Other affected infrastructure includes the forest watershed, power lines, phone lines, and one of the
state's main north/south transportation corridors(US Hwy 395). This community has a high hazard rating in the Grant
Co. CWPP and through this project, the strategy of fuels reduction/defensible space for this community will be
addressed.
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:
This project will provide incentives on private lands for the reduction of fuel loading and crown density. Overstocked
mixed conifer, Ponderosa Pine, Western Juniper,and natural vegetation will be thinned adjacent to structures and the
surrounding forest to create defensible space along with a community fuel break which will reduce the intensity of a
wildfire. A healthier forest will also be attained which will more easily survive a reduced intensity fire. The precomm. thinning and pruning will occur during the spring and summer while the slash abatement will occurr during the
winter.
C. Explain how the project is designed to reduce smoke production impacts that affect public health. (10 points)
Response:
Much of the fuels that are removed through this project will be utilized as fuel wood for local residents. Locally, there
are some operators which have chippers to create hog fuel to be used at a Co-gen plant. Also, the use of slash busters
in the area has increased which reconfigure the fuel loading (small, scattered chunks)into more easily biodegradable
pieces for onsite nutrient recycling while reducing the risk of fire. We strongly encourage utilization of the material
generated on these projects. A participant receives a higher cost-share % if the material is utilized and not burned.
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:
The local economy has been suppressed for years with the reduction of timber harvests on Fed land. This project
would help sustain marginally employed forest workers along with service jobs to these workers (mechanics, saw
shops, equipment rentals). This project would heighten the awareness of fuels reduction which would create a demand
for these services after the seed money is gone. Participants recieve higher % cost-share if local labor is used on their
project.
B. Will biomass that is produced by the project be utilized; if so, in what manner and how much? (10 points)
Response:
Within the community of Prairie City (15 miles to the east) there is a Co-gen plant where we expect 50% of the
material by weight to be delivered. The surrounding communities are actively developing markets for fuel wood and
small diam. wood products where we expect 30% of the material to be utilized. The remainder of the material will be
either modified for on-site recycling or burned.
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:
Through the development of the CWPP, coordination and collaboration has taken place to identify and prioritize the
communities at risk and projects to be completed. Collaboration continues to be with the private landowners, rurals &
fire defense board for accomplishing work on private lands. Coordination has & continues to be with the Malheur
National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District & Prineville District, BLM to coordinate activities on federal lands
adjoining the Canyon City
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:
ODF's and other supporting agencies time to plan and implement this project will be in-kind. Cost-share agreements
with participating private landowners will be developed to assure that they have a cash or in-kind contribution to this
project. In and around the project area ODF is implementing, forest health protection projects are funded by the USFS
(see Partner 2 $100,000 on budget page). These projects will compliment and connect fuel treatment projects.
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:
The Oregon Department of Forestry has a long history of implementing federally funded cost-share programs on
private land. We have pre-established cost-share rates for different work (thinning, slash treatment, slash buster)
updated annually that are based upon actual costs from past projects within this area of the state. We use these per acre
rates to determine the total eligible cost-share amount per project. The per acre rates are also tiered based upon the
difficulty (terrain, stems/acre, fuel type) to perform such activities. From our vast amount of past projects in similar
conditions, the average cost to adequately reduce fuel loading on forestland is $500 per acre which accounts for both
pre-commercial thinning and slash treatment. As part of our cost-share programs, we pay between 80-95% of the
actual costs incurred on a project based upon utilization of material, use of local contractors,work being performed
adjacent to a structure, etc. At the completion of the project, the participant submits documentation of the costs to
perform such project and we calculate the approved % of the cost which the landowner is eligible for payment on. The
other costs associated with this project are for the personnel (NRS2 forester for 6 months @ $3955/ month) to plan
and provide technical assistance to implement the project, other personnel expenses (benefits 50% of wage)for the
forester, and travel costs to and from the individual project sites.
Project Work Form
Tasks
Time Frame
Responsible Party
Contact landowners in project area, determine
eligiblity, process applications, write project
specifications
6-1-07 to 10-1-09
Oregon Department of Forestry Foresters
Complete projects
6-1-07 to 10-31-09
Landowners, contractors, consultants
Inspect projects for adherence to specifications,
document costs, determine cost share amount,
process for payments
7-1-07 to 12-31-09
Oregon Department of Forestry Foresters
Update CWPP, continue coordination
ongoing
ODF foresters
Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Applicant
Landowners
USFS
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Total
Personnel
ODF Forester- NRS2
Subtotal
$11,865.00
$11,865.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$23,730.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$11,865.00
$11,865.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$23,730.00
$5,933.00
$5,933.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$11,866.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,933.00
$5,933.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$11,866.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
$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
$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
$176,202.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$176,202.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$100,000.00
$0.00
$100,000.00
$176,202.00
$0.00
$0.00
$100,000.00
$0.00
$276,202.00
$6,000.00
$0.00
$19,578.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25,578.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6,000.00
$0.00
$19,578.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25,578.00
$200,000.00
$20,798.00
$19,578.00
$100,000.00
$0.00
$340,376.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Fringe Benefits
Benefits
Subtotal
Travel
.50 x 6000
Subtotal
Equipment
Subtotal
Supplies
Subtotal
Contractual
Landowner payments
Forest Health treatments
Subtotal
Other
Salem Admin (3%)
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.