ID Number 2007-58
Fuels Treatment Projects Application
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE PROJECTS
Applicant
Applicant/Organization:
Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC)
Type of Applicant:
L (Nonprofit Organization)
Email:
tl@onrc.org
Phone:
541 382-2616
FAX:
541 385-3370
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
16 NW Kansas Ave Bend, OR 97701
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Mr. Tim Lillebo, Eastern Oregon Field Representative
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC)
Email:
tl@onrc.org
Phone:
541 382-2616
FAX:
541 385-3370
Project Information
Project Title:
Glaze Meadow/Black Butte Fuels and Restoration (GM)
Project Location:
Sisters, Oregon
County:
Deschutes
Congressional District:
2
Latitude:
44.36
Longitude:
-121.635
State the desired outcome in relation to NFP Goals and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Project Objectives:
Due to several wildfires that have occurred in the Greater Sisters Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan area, concern among residents and
surrounding landowners has drastically risen and fuels treatments have become a top priority. This Project is a priority of the Greater Sisters Country
Wildfire Protection Plan. This project would help reduce fire risk to the Black Butte Ranch community and benefit nearby housing developments like
Tollgate, Cascade Meadows and Indian Ford. There are 200+ private homes adjacent to the 1 ½ mile common boundary of Black Butte Ranch subdivision
and Deschutes National Forest lands. This project will conduct fuels reduction thinning, biomass use, and prescribed burning on approx. 800 acres in
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Community Zone in Ponderosa Pine forest, aspen forest, and meadow habitat to promote more fire resistant conditions and
restore proper ecological function. The area is designated old growth on the Deschutes National Forest.
Name of CWPP:
Greater Sisters Community Wildfire Protection Plan (GSCWPP)
Name of Communit(y/ies) at Risk:
Black Butte Ranch, Tollgate, Cascade Meadows, Indian Ford
Proposed Project Start Date:
10/01/2006
Proposed Project End Date:
06/01/2008
Federal Funding Request:
$85,000.00
Total Project Cost:
$581,700.00
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.
Glaze Meadow (GM) Fuels Utilization and Marketing is the first priority and GM Fuels Treatment is second Priority. Both request are for the same acres of
land. Fuels reduction treatments would occur first and then log and biomass removal awould follow on the same acres. The Fuels Utiliation Grant request
would help with biomass hauling costs and the Fuels Treatment grant request would help with cuuting the fuels.
Name of Federal, State or Tribal contact with whom you coordinated this proposal:
Organization/Jurisdiction:
1) Lisa Clark
Central Oregon Fire Mgt Services
Phone
541 416-6864
Warm Springs Forest Products Industries (WSFPI)
2) Cal Mukumoto
Phone
Email lmclark@or.blm.gov
541 382-2708
Email cal@mukumoto.com
3)
Phone
Email
Project Planning Information
Name of Local Coordinating Group:
Central Oregon Fire Leadership Council
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?
The Greater Sisters Country Community Wildfire Protection Plan endorses this as priority project
List federal lands that are adjacent to the project and proximity.
this is Forest Service land w/ 1.5 mile bdry w/ Black Butte Ranch
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
600
Treatment
Biomass Removal
Acres
600
Treatment
Broadcast Burn
Acres
750
Treatment
Acres
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:
Fuels treatments will help to protect US Hwy 20, several miles of residential roads, and powerlines. In addition,
treatments implemented in the project area will help to protect approximately 1730 homes with a cumulative value of
over $500 million. The breakdown of homes are as follows: Black Butte Ranch - 1200 homes; Tollgate - 400 homes;
Indain Ford - 100 homes; and Cascade Meadows - 30 homes. This projects implements protection of a priority area in
the Grater Sisters Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
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 proposal will reduce fire behavior in wildland urban interface area by removing small diameter forest fuels and
underbrush. Thinning should be completed in 07 and prescibed fire in 07-09, which is a priority of the Greater Sisters
CWPP. The primary strategy will be to remove ladder fuels to decrease the intensity of future fires and to ensure fires
do not reach the tree crowns in order to avoid stand-replacing fires. The treatments will help to prevent fires and
mitigate damages of those that do occur by decreasing their intensity, slowing fire movement and keeping it close to
the ground.
C. Explain how the project is designed to reduce smoke production impacts that affect public health. (10 points)
Response:
Fuels reduction and log and biomass removel would decrease the smoke of followup prescribed burning. Biomass
removal and utilization in an efficient energy production facilty would decrease smoke production by many times that
of broadcast burning or wildfire. This significant decrease in overall smoke would have relative positive health
benefits to local residents as compared with volumes of wildfire smoke or volumes of prescribed burning smoke
without the biomass and log removal.
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 directly implement the strategies defined by the 2005 Greater Sisters Country Community Wildfire
Protection Plan. Benefits are multiple direct and indirect jobs from treatments and utilization of biomass energy
production. This collaborative project serves as a template for continued long term fuels reduction and biomass
utiliztion for future local projects. Biomass energy production will provide a market for small diameter material and
increase incentives for future projects.
B. Will biomass that is produced by the project be utilized; if so, in what manner and how much? (10 points)
Response:
Biomass should be utilized for energy and forest products production at local mills. Existing boiler capacity can utilize
all of the biomass produced, approximately 6000 tons. A local mill (WSFPI) plans to install a 17.5 megawatt turbine
in the near future and could utilize more biomass material for electrical energy production. Larger biomass will be
utilized as chip n saw and other log products. All biomass material will be delivered to the highest and best markets.
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:
1 1/2 years of outreach and collaboration with local interests preceeded the GM project proposal. Partners and
endorsers include Greater Sisters Community Wildfire Plan, Warm Springs Tribe, WSFPI, Forest Service, Oregon
Natural Resources Council & 6 other conservation groups. Presentations and field tours for local Fire Depts. and Fire
Protection Districts, various homeowners, OR Dept of Forestry, OR Dept of Fish and Wildlife, County
Commissioners, US Senators and Representaives.
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:
Warm Spring Forest Products Industries $12500 secure $2500 cash balance in-kind Oregon Natural Resources
Council $8500 secure $3000 cash balance in-kind WSFPI & ONRC Title II grant $36000 secure Forest Service
$35000 secure National Forest Foundation $5500 secure Rocky Mtn Elk Found $8000 pending Native Plant Society
of Oregon $4800 in-kind secure East Cascades Bird Conservancy $4500 in-kind secure Oregon Hunters Assoc,
volunteer labor
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:
Cost structure for treatments were based on regional experience with similar local projects located in the Metolius
Basin, west of Black Butte Ranch and on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation of Oregon. Also cost factors were
compared to biomass projects in Northern California where a viable biomass energy industry exists. Trucking costs
are based on those experienced in region. Production assumptions are based on current experience of project sponsors.
Fencing costs are based on project sponsors experience.
Project Work Form
Tasks
Initial Planning and Collaboration
Fundraising
Plant and Bird Surveys
Time Frame
2004-2006, ongoing
2005-ongoing
Responsible Party
Project Partners; WSFPI, ONRC, Warm Springs
Geovisions, NPSO, ECBC, Forest Service,
collaborators
Project partners and Forest Service and
collaborators
Spring 2005-2007
Project partners and Forest Service
NEPA completion
Spring 2006
Forest Service and Project partners
develop prescriptions, marking, layout, and
transportation
2005-2006
Forest Service and Project partners and
collaborators
marking, layout, and transportation
on the ground work, thinning and biomass material
removal
prescribed burning
2006
winter 2006-2007
2007-2009
Forest Service and Project partners
Contractors and Project partners
Forest Service
Project Budget
WSFPI/Geovisions National Forest Forest Service
Foun
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Applicant
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Total
Personnel
$5,000.00
$8,500.00
$5,000.00
$5,500.00
$35,000.00
$59,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$8,500.00
$5,000.00
$5,500.00
$35,000.00
$59,000.00
$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
$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
$80,000.00
$0.00
$7,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$87,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$80,000.00
$0.00
$7,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$87,500.00
field work, layout, surve
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
monitoring
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$85,000.00
$8,500.00
$12,500.00
$5,500.00
$35,000.00
$146,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$385,000.00
$385,000.00
project develop - admin
Subtotal
Fringe Benefits
Subtotal
Travel
Subtotal
Equipment
Subtotal
Supplies
fencing
Subtotal
Contractual
fuels reduction thinning
biomass removal
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.