ID Number 2007-48
Fuels Treatment Projects Application
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE PROJECTS
Applicant
Applicant/Organization:
Chelan County Conservation District
Type of Applicant:
L (Nonprofit Organization)
Email:
mike.rickel@wa.nacdnet.net
Phone:
509-664-0268
FAX:
509-664-0255
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
301 Yakima Street, Room 307 Wenatchee, WA 98801
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Mr. Mike Rickel, Natural Resource Specialist
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Chelan County Conservation District
Email:
mike.rickel@wa.nacdnet.net
Phone:
509-664-0268
FAX:
509-664-0255
Project Information
Project Title:
Chumstick Watershed Fuels Reduction
Project Location:
Leavenworth, Chelan County, WA
County:
Chelan
Congressional District:
4
Latitude:
47.644
Longitude:
-120.675
State the desired outcome in relation to NFP Goals and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Project Objectives:
The Chumstick Watershed Fuels Reduction Committee is an umbrella group overseeing approximately 18,000 ac of private land and 1,800 people in 600
homes within a 50,000-ac watershed. This project would implement treatments recommended to reduce hazardous fuels within defensible space based on
assessments (NFP-299) completed under a previous grant. Fuels treatment would be completed on 200 homes, and hazards beyond homesites would be
reduced on 200 ac, and biomass would be utilized. Treatments beyond homes would focus on ingress/egress safety for residents and fire suppression
personnel, and strategic fuel breaks, based on priorites in our CWPP, and in coordination with adjoining USFS fuels reduction projects. This would
implement the NFP goal of hazardous fuel reduction. A fuels specialist-consultant would manage subcontracts and a grant administrator would develop
agreements, similar to the model used successfully to conduct assessments on homes in the project area.
Name of CWPP:
Name of Communit(y/ies) at Risk:
Leavenworth Area CWPP
Leavenworth, WA
Proposed Project Start Date:
03/01/2007
Proposed Project End Date:
12/31/2008
Federal Funding Request:
$200,000.00
Total Project Cost:
$264,000.00
Yes
Are you submitting multiple projects?
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.
Priority #1: Chumstick Watershed Fuels Reduction (ID No. 2007-48). #2: Chelan County Biomass Utlization (ID No. 2007-98). Both projects implement
high priority aspects of the Leavenworth CWPP. The #2 project would allow better utilization of biomass generated from #1, and encompasses a much larger
area, and is in coordination with a larger group including Leavenworth Neighbors, Ponderosa, Peshastin, Squilchuck CWPPs, Chelan Co. PUD, USFS,
WADNR, U of WA, LongView Fibre, and Yakama Nation.
Name of Federal, State or Tribal contact with whom you coordinated this proposal: Organization/Jurisdiction:
USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee River Ranger Dist
1) Vaughan Marable, District Ranger
Phone
509-548-6977 Ext. 200
2) Len Riggen
Phone
Washington DNR
509-925-0969
3) Kelly O'Brien
Phone
Email vdmarable@fs.fed.us
Email len.riggin@wadnr.gov
Chelan County Fire District 3
509-548-7711
Email chief3@nwi.net
Project Planning Information
Name of Local Coordinating Group:
Chelan County (Fire Advisory Board) LCG
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?
Extensive coordination with LCG, including CCFD#3, USFS, WADNR, and implementing Leavenworth CWPP.
List federal lands that are adjacent to the project and proximity.
USFS intermingled with project area. BLM and USFWS within 3 miles
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
7375
Treatment
Biomass Removal
Acres
650
Treatment
Hand Pile Burn
Acres
2875
Treatment
Grazing
Acres
3050
Treatment
Acres
0
If you have a treatment type other than standard types above:
Treatment
Broadcast Burn
Acres
2500
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:
Fire protection will be improved for 600 homes and businesses in the project area, as well as ingress/egress routes
that support fire suppression activities and resident evacuation, as well as the neighboring communities of
Leavenworth and Plain. Fire risk will be reduced for commercial private timber land, two major power transmission
lines, a railway, and a county highway. This proposal implements 5 of the 10 fuel feduction priorities from the
Mitigation Action Plan of the Leavenworth Area CWPP.
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:
Defensible space in the immediate vicinity of structures, 30 to 300', depending on vegetation type and topography,
would be the highest priority for treatment. Fuels removed would be based on risk assessments completed under an
earlier grant. Biomass would be utilized by chipping and spreading, firewood, merchantable small-diameter material
sent to the mill, or piled and burned. Thus thinning and ladder fuel removal would decrease fire intensity and flame
lengths, and reduce the risk of crown fire and structure ignition. Strategic fuel break coordination between private and
federal parties
C. Explain how the project is designed to reduce smoke production impacts that affect public health. (10 points)
Response:
Most biomass removed from defensible space will be unmerhantable, so chipping and spreading would be utilized to
reduce smoke. The Chelan County chipper will be used to the maximum extent possible for this material. If piles are
burned, professional fuels reduction specialists will burn them or advise landowners to burn at high temperatures
when they are dry, cured, and no inversion exists. Larger material (mostly) from fuelbreaks would be sent to the local
mill or burned more efficiently as firewood.
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:
Based on similar work completed by our neighbors to the south, 15 local contractors have been identified.
Administrators and fuels-specialists would oversee and coordinate. Experienced personnel are already working in
adjacent areas on similar projects, and will continue. Initial work would take 2 years, with maintenance ongoing
indefinitely. Successful completion would lessen impacts of fire and smoke to Leavenworth's multi-million dollar
tourism industry.
B. Will biomass that is produced by the project be utilized; if so, in what manner and how much? (10 points)
Response:
Biomass will be utilized extensively by sending merchantable material (and subsidizing some non-merchantable) to
our local mill, chipping smaller material and using as mulch, or using some for firewood. The large Chelan County
chipper will be staged in our area and used. Defensible space will produce modest amounts of biomass, while
fuelbreaks will produce large quantities. Other biomass utililization options are being explored in the County, and we
will take advantage of all opportunities.
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:
Extensive collaboration has occurred producing the Leavenworth CWPP among Chumstick Watershed Fuels
Reduction Committee (local landowners), CCCD, CCFD #3, WA DNR, the USFS, the Leavenworth Neighborhoods
Fuels Reduction group (our neighbors to the south), and Ponderosa CWPP (neighbors to the northwest). The project
implements the LCWPP. Strategic fuelbreaks will be coordinated with Ponderosa CWPP and USFS, who is beginning
planning for a large fuels reduction project (Chumstick) here in 2006.
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:
Committee members have & continue to contribute 100s of hours of vol. time (in-kind $). Implementation of a fuels
reduction demo project at Redtail Canyon Farm in our project area has contributed $15K in-kind, & field trips &
future demos will continue. Two Firewise workshops were conducted, with vol. coordination, & more are planned.
USFS & CCFD#3 would contribute $13.5K as in-kind or equip. Landowners sweat equity & equip. would contribute
$50.5K. USFS could spend >$
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:
For defensible space treatments, we estimate an avg. cost of $600/home, and an avg. area of 0.75 ac, or $800/ac. For
200 homes proposed, this totals $120K. For fuels reduction on 5 miles of ingress/egress routes, to 100' on either side,
we estimate a cost of $800/ac over an area of 120 ac, totalling $96K. For strategic fuel breaks, we estimate a cost of
$600/ac, so remaining $48K would accomplish 80 ac, or ~2 linear miles at 200-400' wide. Any cost savings from
defensible space or road work would be used to lengthen fuel break. Future grants will be sought here as well to
complete fuelbreaks. These average costs account for overhead (25% of salaries and benefits), matching funds (32%
of grant total), and administration costs. Defensible space is highest priority, to be funded and accomplished first,
followed by ingress/egress, and finally strategic fuelbreaks. Strategic fuelbreaks on private property would be planned
in cooperation with USFS that has intermingled lands, and is beginning planning for a landscape-scale fuels reduction
project in the Chumstick in 2006, and could accomplish NEPA. This would further leverage budget, as well as
effectiveness of fuelbreak, and efficiency of project to complete. USFS will likely spend ~$500K in next 3 years on
the Chumstick Fuels reduction project not claimed as matching on budget sheet. Cooperation with adjacent Ponderosa
CWPP on fuelbreak planning and implementation will also leverage efficiency.
Project Work Form
Tasks
Time Frame
Prioritize landowners to participate in this phase of
treatments
Spring - Summer 2007
Hire consulting fuels specialist-contract
administrator to coordinate work with landowners
Summer 2007
Complete defensible space work
Implement land-scape scale recommendations
beyond defensible space from CWPP.
Ingress/egress and fuelbreaks.
Public Education and outreach
Final project report
Responsible Party
Chumstick Fuels Reduction Committe, CCFD#3,
CCCD
CCCD, Chumstick Fuels Reduction Committee
Summer 2007 - Fall 2008
Contract administrator with oversight from CCCD
Fall 2007 - Fall 2008
Contract administrator with oversight from CCCD
Ongoing
December 2008
Chumstick Fuels Reduction Committee with
cooperation with conctractors and agencies and
adjacent hazardous fuels reduction groups.
CCCD
Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Applicant
Chelan Co. FD
US Forest
#3
Service
Landowners
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Total
Personnel
$20,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$20,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$10,000.00
$50,000.00
$62,000.00
$20,000.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$10,000.00
$50,000.00
$82,000.00
$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
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$500.00
$0.00
$500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$500.00
$0.00
$500.00
Fuels Consultant
$30,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$30,000.00
Fuels Reduction
$150,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$150,000.00
$180,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$180,000.00
$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
$200,000.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$11,500.00
$50,500.00
$264,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Administrator
Cooperators
Subtotal
Fringe Benefits
Subtotal
Travel
Subtotal
Equipment
GIS/Computers
Subtotal
Supplies
Maps
Subtotal
Contractual
Subtotal
Other
Subtotal
Total Costs
Project (Program) Income 1
(using deductive alternative)
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.
1