Enclosure 3A - Project Summary Form
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE PROJECTS
Application for Wildland Urban Interface Fuels / Education and
Prevention / Community Planning for Fire Protection Projects
Applicant
Applicant/Organization:
The Watershed Research and Training Center
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
530-628-4206
530-628-5100
wrtc@hayfork.net
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
Box 356 Hayfork, CA 96041
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
George McKinley
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Jefferson Sustainable Development Institute
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
541-482-6220
541-482-6220
jsdi@jeffnet.org
Project Information
Project Title:
Dry Forest Mechanized Fuels Treatment Trials-Ashland Watershed/Blue Mountains
Proposed Project Start Date:
April 2004
Proposed Project End Date:
May 2005
Federal Funding Request:
$136,000
Total Project Funding:
$178,500
Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize:
Yes, Deschutes County Fire Planning is 2nd priority
Brief Project Description:
The Dry Forest Mechanized Fuels Treatment Trials (DFMT), funded by NFP, recently finished its
fourth set of field trials. The trials attracted hundreds of participants and the model created proved
highly successful in encouraging dialogue about fuels treatment objectives and methods between
local contractors, government agency personnel, community representatives, and media. The
model was also successful in fulfilling its goals of introducing various mechanized fuels
manipulations in realistic situations, providing data to assess analysis of economics and
environmental impacts, and utilizing biomass where appropriate. The Hayfork Watershed
Research and Training Center, through its new satellite office in southern Oregon, proposes to use
the model created by the DFMT project to implement trials in the Ashland Watershed and the Blue
Mtns,Wallowa-Whitman NF. The focus will be on steep ground and riparian areas in the WUI,
situations that were not addressed by the DFMT project. Trials will be accessible to the public, a
public/private steering committee will guide the project. Outcomes will be widely disseminated.
Project Location (latitude/longitude if applicable):
County:
Congressional District:
Ashland and Wallowa-Whitman NF
Jackson and Wallowa/Union
2&4
Project Type: Check appropriate project type. More than one type may be checked. If only Box (4) is checked, use Enclosure 4.
(1) xx Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Project
(3)
Community Planning for Fire Protection Project
(2) xx Wildland Urban Interface Education and Prevention
(4) xx Fuels Utilization and Marketing Project
Project
If the applicant is an unincorporated area, define the geographic area being represented:
N/A
Enclosure 3B (Page 1 of 3) - Project Narrative Description
Applications for funding must include a narrative response that describes the proposal. Please do not submit responses longer than one page,
single space, 12-pitch font.
Describe project including, but not limited to:
 project location
Address these
 project implementation
items as
 anticipated outcomes
applicable:
 measures and reporting
 interagency partners





project relationship to community or natural landscape fire plans
project time frames and income
specify types of activities and equipment used
amount or extent of actions (acres, number of homes, etc)
environmental, cultural and historical resource requirements
LOCATION AND FUELS TREATMENT PLANS: Trials will be held at two sites: Rouge River NF Ashland Watershed and
Wallowa-Whitman NF. Each location has community partners and landscape fire plans completed or in process.
IMPLEMENTATION, ACTIVITIES, TIME FRAME AND EQUIPMENT: A similar approach will be used as the successful
DFMT Trials. 1) Creation of a public/private ad hoc steering committee composed of key interested and affected parties; 2)
Appointment of site liaisons; 3) final choice of locations, systems, timing, and protocol; 4) implementation of detailed
communications planwith targeted outreach to appropriate community, agency, conservation groups, and industry representatives as
well as media; 5) pre and post trial site condition and impacts assessment; 6) final site layout and actual field trials with detailed
time and work study and safety plan; 7) draft and final reports; and 8) follow-up public meetings and results dissemination,
including national forums. Time frame depends on grant authorization, but is expected to be completed within 12 months, given
fire season and winter operational constraints. At least one small-medium size yarder will b used at each site with a trained crew, as
well as aat least one specialized ground-based system. More systems will be included depending on ground conditions in riparian
areas and specific site conditions. Up to eight will be used for previous DFMT trials. Product removed will be processed through
an economizer mini-mill for purposes of demonstration. Projects will occur on Federal Lands that are NEPA compliant.
ANTICPATED OUTCOMES: Important expected outcomes are increased awareness of different ways to approach fuels
management objectives on steep ground and riparian areas, and clear parameters to measure success. These results will help
government agencies plan and budget for future fuels treatment projects, assist local contractors make better business decisions
about what equipment to buy or lease, and improve the ability of local community interests to better assess fuels treatment options.
Markets for fuels removed to meet treatment prescriptions will be explored with local small business and industry cooperators.
Final project results will be examined to determine the need for research-level investigations. Fewer than 40 acres will be treated in
total because of the nature of the project. Long-term manly more acres will be treated because of expected project results.
MEASURES AND REPORTING: A clear work plan will be the first deliverable from the contractor selected to coordinate and run
the trials. The work plan will be posted on a web site that will also be used to track discussions, interim progress reports, and
results. Pre and post fuel treatment data will be gathered and reported using protocol already worked out with Regional Office
personnel. Draft and final reports will be prepared and reviewed, and public presentations made to discuss results in conjunction
with local partners.
INTERAGENCY PARTNERS: The Watershed Research and Training Center will use existing networks established for the
Ashland and NE Oregon watershed activities. So. Ore RC&D, Jefferson Sustainable Development Institute, and Wallowa
Resources are local partners who will help with outreach and coordination. Based on previous experience, steering committee
membership is expected to be a mix of private representatives and government personnel representing USFS research, NFS, State
and Private Coop Forestry, local community groups, local contractors and industry, industry associations, BLM, OSU and ODF.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife may also participate on an informal basis. Equipment vendors are
key partners and contributed over $15,000 for each of the previous DFMT trials.
Enclosure 3B (Page 2 of 3) - Project Evaluation Criteria
Applications for funding must include narrative responses that address the following four criteria. Within each criterion, subcriteria are listed in descending order of importance. Limit your responses to the areas provided.
1. Reducing Fire Risk. (40 points))
A. Describe how the proposal promotes reduction of risk in high hazard areas or communities, or natural landscapes.
B. Describe how the proposed project benefits resources on federal land or adjacent non-federal land, or how it protects the safety
of communities.
C. To what extent does the project implement or create a cooperative (1) fuels treatment plan or (2) community fire strategy
(include evidence of the plan if it already exists)?
D. Explain to what extent the affected community or proponent has been involved or plans to involve the affected community in a
qualified fuels education program (e.g., FIREWISE).
E. Explain how the proposal (1) leads to, enhances or restores a local fire-adapted ecosystem, and/or (2) mitigates or leads to the
mitigation of hazardous fuel conditions.
F. How will the proposed treatments or programs be maintained in future years?
Response:
RISK REDUCTION AND HAZARDOUS FUELS MITIGATION-Until recently, fuels reduction planning and projects
concentrated on easily-accessible, flatter ground. However, an average of at least 25% of potential acres classified as needing
treatment are steep (35%+slope) and at least 10% of total acres are in riparian conservation areas. Proposed project locations and
focus were chosen specifically because of lack of prior work, and potential threats to communities and threatened/endangered
species. This project will improve dialogue between agency field units, contractors, industry representatives, and local community
organizations about efficacy and economics of fuels treatment methods for steeper ground and riparian areas, and increase
knowledge and awareness of options.
RESOURCE BENEFITS AND MAINTENANCE: Long-term the project will assist agency personnel and contractors reduce costs
and environmental impacts, and increase locations and acres treated. Prescribed fire will be used in most cases to maintain
treatments.
COOPERATIVE FIRE PLAN/STRATEGY AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: The proposed project was specifically
solicited by local interests in SW and NE Oregon. Intensive cooperative planning and community involvement in fuels reduction
and watershed health projects are on-going in both locations.
2. Increasing local capacity. (30 points)
A. How would the proposal improve or lead to the improvement of the local economy in terms of jobs and sustainable economic
activity? How many jobs are expected to be created or retained and for how long (please distinguish between essentially yearround and seasonal jobs)? How will this proposal link to toher projects (or proposed projects) to create year-round jobs?
B. To what extent will this project be offered to serve as a model for other communities or natural landscapes?
C. Will biomass or forest fuels be utilized; if so, in what manner and how much?
Response:
ECONOMIC BENEFITS: The proposed project increases treatment options, potential “treatable acres”, and local job
opportunities, especially in the critical forest industry sector. The types of jobs and equipment needed for steep ground a riparian
areas can be used for other forest management activities. Markets for fuels removed as part of the treatment prescriptions will be
explored with local groups and industry. Cable operations commonly employ 3-5 people per side. It is conceivable the 2-3 cable
sides could operate on Eastside and Dry Forest sites fro 9 months per year, directly creating the equivalent of 5-11 fte jobs.
LINKS TO TOHER PROJECTS/PROJECT MODELS: The Watershed Research and Training Center is already involved with
BLM on the Boaz Project and small landowner treatment alternatives, both in the Applegate area. Wallowa Resources also has a
small cable project funded in NE Oregon, but has not yet implemented. The proposed project will coordinate with these efforts and
strengthen them. The existing successful fuels treatment trials model is the model which will be used here. Application to steep
ground and riparian areas will expand the model and help adapt it to other sensitive WUI acres.
UTILIZATION: Fuels removed as part of the treatment prescription will be sorted and assessed for highest and best use. Markets
will be explored with local industry and private business. The economizer mini-mill will process sub-merchantable small diameter.
Both locations have interested industry partners.
Enclosure 3B (Page 3 of 3) - Project Evaluation Criteria
3. Increasing interagency and intergovernmental coordination. (15 Points)
A. Describe how this project implements a local intergovernmental strategy or plan, or creates such a plan. Describe the plan if it
already exists.
B. Explain the level of cooperation, coordination or strategic planning through a “Local Coordination Group” for wildland fire
activities, or among federal, state, tribal, local government and community organizations. List the cooperators (a detailed list
of cooperators will be required for projects that are funded).
Response:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL STRATEGY/PLAN: Both projects will take place within areas that are the focus of
intergovernmental strategies and plans. The Ashland Watershed and associated projects have been at the center of an
intensive effort for the Rogue River NF, Ashland RCD, City of Ashland, and local community groups for at least the last
three years. Project locations under consideration on the Wallowa-Whitman NF are part of the intensive planning efforts
associated with the Blue Mountains Demonstration Project.
PARTNERS AND COOPERATION: There is a high degree of cooperation and coordination for each of the project
locations proposed. The Ashland Watershed consists of several groups and organizations, including the Collaborative
Learning Circle, The Applegate Partnership, The City of Ashland, and Jefferson Sustainable Development Institute, among
others. The Wallows-Whitman NF is within the Blue Mtn. Demonstration Project which consists of fewer groups and
organizations but includes Wallowa Resources as the main community organizer. Sustainable Northwest, located in
Portland, will provide support for outreach to media. The Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities Partnership, a
marketing association will provide outreach to small scale producers and assistance in utiloization and market analysis.
Based on previous experience, the steering committee for the proposed project will include Forest Service Research, NFS,
State/Private Coop Forestry, BLM, local contractors and industry, local community organizations, industry associations,
OSU and possibly ODF. NMFS and US Fish and Wildlife Service personnel have expressed interest in participating on an
ad hoc basis as their work schedule permits. A more detailed list will be prepared if the project is authorized and funded.
4. Expanding Community Participation. (15 Points)
A. To what extent have interested individuals, groups, and communities been provided an opportunity to become informed and
involved in this proposal?
B. Describe the extent of local support or opposition for the project, including any cost-sharing arrangements.
C. What are the environmental, social and educational benefits or concerns of the project?
Response:
INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION: The model used for the proposed project was shaped by community and
agency representatives in four locations and three states. Over 15 agencies and organizations were represented at previous
trials. It is expected even more will participate in these trials because of already established contacts. The Watershed
Research and Training Center will work with the contractor selected to ensure participation and intensive public outreach
similar to previous treatment trials. Existing groups and organizations established for planning and involvement purposes
will be utilized and included at both the proposed locations.
LOCAL SUPPORT AND COST SHARING: There will always be opposition to vegetative manipulation on public lands.
However, both site locations have long histories of local involvement and support for the activities proposed. Equipment
vendors will contribute in-kind services and supplies equivalent to about $30,000 for the present proposal. Applicant and
other partners will contribute another $10,000 in-kind.
ENVIRONMENTAL/SOCIAL/EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS: The proposed project will help continue the critical dialogue
about fuels treatment between government agencies, community organizations, private landowners, local contractors, and
local forest products industry. It will also heighten awareness of options available and costs to treat highly sensitive areas,
such as steep slopes and riparian areas. Besides local interests, outreach is emphasized to local, regional, and national
media. Long-term, the project is expected to help make more acres available for fuels treatment that might not otherwise
be considered.
Enclosure 3C - Project Work Form
Tasks
Time Frame
Responsible Party
1. Organize Core Steering Committee and
Issue RFP for contractord
60 days from Notice to Proceed-timeline
starts with signed agreement-contract
between funder and Watershed Center
WRTC Ashland Coordinator/Wallowa
Coordinator with assistance from
PNW State and Pvt. Liaison for
previous Mechanical Fuels
Treatment project.
2. Evaluate and Award Contract(s)
90 days
WRTC Coordinators and Core
Steering Committee
3. Complete work plan, site selection,
equipment alternative review, schedule field
trials, and create web site
120 days
WRTC coordinators, Primary
Contractor, Site Liaisons, and
expanded steering committee
4. Complete communication and outreach
plan and implement
150 days
WRTC coordinators, primary
contractor, site liaisons, and expanded
steering committee
5. Complete final site layout, Safety Plan,
pre-project assessments and time/motion
studies, train group facilitators, stage field
trials, and complete post project assessments.
210 days
WRTC Coordinators, primary
contractor, site liaisons, and expanded
steering committee
6. Complete draft final report, submit for
review, and incorporate comments
280 days
WRTC coordinators, primary
contractor, site liaisons, and expanded
steering committee
7. Complete final report, make two public
presentations in nearby communities,
disseminate results to interested parties,
media, professional publications and
conferences
310 days
WRTC coordinator, primary
contractor, site liaisons, and expanded
steering committee
Enclosure 3D Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Personnel
WRTC coordinators
$25/hr x 400
Subtotal
Federal
Agency
Applicant
Partner 1
Partner 2
Total
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
2,000
2,000
Subtotal
2,000
2,000
Travel
For coordination
For dissemination
Subtotal
5,000
3,500
5,000
3,500
Fringe Benefits
20% of salary
Equipment
Yarder,Crew, Shovel,Lowby
Lowboy
Economizer,Crew,Loader
Subtotal
36,000
36,000
66,000
10,000
76,000
30,000
10,000
10,000
30,000
Supplies
Subtotal
Contractual
Prime Contractor
Subtotal
Other
Outreach,media,services
Admin @ 7%
Subtotal
Total Costs
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
2,500
2,500
9,500
12,000
2,500
178,500
2,500
9,500
9,500
136,000
10,000
30,000
Project (Program) Income1
(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.
0