ID Number 2007-80
Fuels Treatment Projects Application
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE PROJECTS
Applicant
Applicant/Organization:
Illinois Valley Community Response Team
Type of Applicant:
L (Nonprofit Organization)
Email:
paul@ivcdo.org
Phone:
541-592-4440
FAX:
541-592-4106
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
139 S. Redwood Hwy. PO Box 1824 Cave Junction, OR 97523
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Robert Schumacher, Executive Director
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Illinois Valley Community Response Team
Email:
robert@ivcdo.org
Phone:
541-592-4440
FAX:
541-592-4106
Project Information
Project Title:
Idle-Pine Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project
Project Location:
Southwestern Josephine County, OR
County:
Josephine
Congressional District:
4
Latitude:
42.1347
Longitude:
-123.6271
State the desired outcome in relation to NFP Goals and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Project Objectives:
This projoect will reduce hazardous timber, hardwood, and dense brush fuel loads in an area of high value/risk upon a long, broad plateau dividing the east
and west forks of the Illinois River. The location is ideal for placement of a landscape level shaded fuel break upon private lands that would tie into adjacent
BLM administered lands. Portions of BLM have recent density management and understory thinning already completed. The nature of the topography and
road access enhance opportunities for viabel bi-product utilization. There is a high degree of initial interest among landowners. Once grant money is
received, the project will serve as a platform to gain additional interest and participation in the local fire safe council and ensure future monitoring and
maintenance of treatment(s).
Name of CWPP:
Jackson/Josephine Local Coordinating Group
Name of Communit(y/ies) at Risk:
Illinois Valley
Proposed Project Start Date:
03/01/2007
Federal Funding Request:
$200,000.00
Are you submitting multiple projects?
No
Proposed Project End Date:
03/01/2008
Total Project Cost:
$242,000.00
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.
Name of Federal, State or Tribal contact with whom you coordinated this proposal:
Organization/Jurisdiction:
1) Tim Gonzales
Medford District BLM, GPRA
Phone
541-471-6643
Email tim_gonzales@blm.gov
2)
Phone
Email
3)
Phone
Email
Project Planning Information
Name of Local Coordinating Group:
Jackson/Josephine Local Coordinating Group (JJLCG)
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?
High level of collaberation through monthly meetings, field trips, and outreach.
List federal lands that are adjacent to the project and proximity.
BLM 160 acres directly adjacent to the South and West.
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?
No
Please indicate planned treatments and associated acres:
Treatment
Thinning
Acres
200
Treatment
Hand Pile
Acres
200
Treatment
Hand Pile Burn
Acres
200
Treatment
Biomass Removal
Acres
200
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:
More than 100 structures and some 200 privately owned acres of mid to late seral douglas fir stands will be protected.
Through implentation of this project, hazardous fuels will be reduced, fire fighter/ landowner owner safety secured,
increased health and vigor of low elevation conifer stands adjacent to federal land will be initiated and maintained, on
the ground education and outreach will foster the desire for long term maintenance, favorable opportunities will arise
for collaberation and trust building amongst stakeholders, and local contractors will continue to perpetuate and thrive.
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:
Project will remove understory timber litter, prune, limb, or remove lower canopy where necesary within dense stands
of mid to late seral stage conifer, remove older dead/dying brush component in heavily timbered areas with continuous
ladder fuel. Some areas of dense/mature live manzanita will be pruned/thinned to release understory conifer seedlings
and poles. All areas will be hand cut, hand piled, and hand burned. Location of treatment will be around private
dwellings/driveways, main access routes within neighborhood, and broader strategic swaths to the north and east of
federal land.
C. Explain how the project is designed to reduce smoke production impacts that affect public health. (10 points)
Response:
Burning debris created during fuel reduction is still the most cost effective per acre treatment method at this time,
however, several factors related to this project WILL REDUCE smoke production. Most of the ground is flat and
accessable. This is more appealing for local contractors with chipping capabilities. It also enhances desire of
landowners/ contractors to utilize special forest products in local markets for purposes other than, but including
firewood. Finally, the coastal influence on local weather patterns during planned burning greatly reduces the number
of days with stagnant air.
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:
Several LOCAL contractors have helped our organization on past/current hazardous fuel reduction. They take pride in
their work and nurture a quality end result. Our organization has required all contractors to be licensed, bonded and
insured. The pre-existing contractors have expanded, and the newly created ones are now legitimate businesses with
good references. Jackson Co has expanded the Job Council program for youths working in the woods to Josephine Co
thanks in part to Thompson Creek(04).
B. Will biomass that is produced by the project be utilized; if so, in what manner and how much? (10 points)
Response:
Currently, the most favorable local biomass markets that will be targeted are: firewood(all species), doug fir poles and
cured manzanita (furniture, fence posts, railing, bird cages, etc.), wood chips (mulch, gardening, livestock pens, etc.).
Rough and Ready (local saw mill) hopes to have the capacity for co-generation in the near future. This will greatly
increase the liklehood of local utilization (free drop-off) in perpetuity.
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:
Our group(JJLCG/JCIFP) meets and discusses all aspects of hazardous fuel reduction. It was created with
collaboration as its intent and has a solid foundation that includes sizable blocks of concerned, informed and
determined members from each local community/organization. This project was chosen with the guidance and support
of our group, the Fire Safe Council (private citizens) and the local Fire Department. This community wants and needs
a positive experience with hazardous fuels reduction.
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:
Homeowners will contribute 33% to defensible space work. We expect homeowners will clear additional acres on
their own as was the case in the Thompson Creek project last year (43 of 205 acres) and the Cathedral Hills project
this year. Neighborhood champions and IVFD personel will volunteer thier time to promote the project to skeptical
residents. Members of the JCIFP contribute their time as mentors for the project. Josephine County will provide
relevant area maps during project implementation.
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 cost estimates are based the Thompson Creek Project. The defensible space work will be contracted by the
homeowner who receive partial riembursement of the cost (66%). Road work and landscape treatment is based on the
rates paid to contractors and the Job Council for Thompson Creek and the Cathedral Hills projects. The cost per acre
will average between $1,000 to $1,300 per acre which includes the cost of burning. This cost can be reduced if the
biomass can be utilized locally. The Rough and Ready lumber mill has applied for a grant to utilize biomass at their
facility. Administrative costs are kept low due to the cooperation of the various agencies who take part in the JCIFP.
Again the lessons learned from the Thompson Creek project has provided us with an efficent model. Administrative
costs are 6% of total budget.
Project Work Form
Tasks
Time Frame
Preparation: 1-Initiate Community Meetings
(home,fire station,schools) 2- Set up administrative
sys.
pre-grant
Project Setup: 1-begin public outreach 2-hold
neighborhood meetings 3-identify density
management restoration areas
Responsible Party
1-IVRFD, IVCDO 2- IVCDO
Months 1,2
1-IVRFD, IVCDO 2-IVRFD, IVCDO 3-IVRFD,
IVCDO,USFS,BLM,ODF
Assesments: 1 NEPA assessments 2-costing based
on density 3-individual property prescriptions 4establish photo points
Throughout Project
1-IVCDO,BLM 2-IVCDO 3-IVCDO,IVRFD 4IVCDO,IVRFD
Fuels Reduction: 1-Complete on the ground work 2Mid-project site monitoring 3-Final approval site
visit
Throughout Project
1-contractors and/or homeowners 2-IVCD 3IVRFD
Payments to contractors or homeowners
Throughout Project
IVCDO
Post Project Monitoring
Ongoing
IVCDO,Siskiyou Field Institute, State and Federal
agencies
Project Budget
Homeowners
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Applicant
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Total
Personnel
$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
outreach, awareness
$2,500.00
$500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
photos, recognition signs
$2,500.00
$500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
$5,000.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6,000.00
$163,000.00
$0.00
$41,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$204,000.00
$15,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
$178,000.00
$0.00
$41,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$219,000.00
$15,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$17,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$17,000.00
$200,000.00
$1,000.00
$41,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$242,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal
Fringe Benefits
Subtotal
Travel
Subtotal
Equipment
Subtotal
Supplies
Subtotal
Contractual
fuels reduction work
assess,monitor,inspection
Subtotal
Other
administrative
NEPA
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.