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:
Oregon Department of Forestry
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
503.945.7341
503.945.7454
Sboro@odf.state.or.us
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
2600 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97310
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Jim Wolf, Prevention Planner
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Oregon Department of Forestry, Southwest Oregon District
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
541.664.3328
541.776.6184
jwolf@odf.state.or.us
Project Information
Project Title:
Applegate Watershed Community Fuel Reduction (AWCFR)
Proposed Project Start Date:
Proposed Project End Date:
October 1, 2003
December 30, 2006
Federal Funding Request:
Total Project Funding:
$245,000
$311,000
Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize:
Yes – Priority # 9 in Fuels Treatment Category
Brief Project Description:
This grant is a continuation of a very successful landowner rebate/incentive program to create defensible
space fuels reduction around homes in the Applegate watershed. This project will provide landowners
financial assistance to develop either survivable space around their homes, or to expand fuel hazard reduction
to strategic points such as along driveways or down slopes. A maximum of ten acres per landowner is
applied to allow as many interested landowners as possible to participate. The 2001 AWCFR reached over
300 homes in the Applegate; the 2002 project is still active but has not yet been tallied. The value of
“defensible space” was proven in the Applegate during the Squire’s Peak fire last July.
This project is an extension of the Applegate Fire Plan (AFP) and provides an incentive to landowners who
have become involved in the community fire planning efforts to accomplish on-the-ground work, as they
continue to learn about fire and forest health issues. Other fuel reduction projects being proposed for the
Applegate in 2004 will require this “defensible space” work to be accomplished prior to planning work for
other private lands.
Project Location (latitude/longitude if applicable):
County:
Congressional District:
500,000 acre Applegate watershed
Jackson & Josephine, OR
Oregon #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) X Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Project
(2)
Wildland Urban Interface Education and Prevention Project
(3)
(4)
Community Planning for Fire Protection Project
Fuels Utilization and Marketing Project
If the applicant is an unincorporated area, define the geographic area being represented:
Southwestern Oregon, the Applegate River sub-basin: the unincorporated communities of Wilderville,
Murphy, Williams, Applegate and Upper Applegate are on the National Register for high fire hazard.
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, and 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: This project is in a watershed with a fire dependant ecosystem that experiences one of the
highest occurrence of wildfires in the state. There are approximately 7,400 households in the nearly 500,000acre Applegate watershed. Mitigation of fuels on private lands near dwellings in key landscape locations will
reduce the risk of loss of human life, property and resources. This project is a continuation of the Applegate
Fuel Project funded by a NFP grant in 2001/02. It also enhances and expands upon the Applegate Fire Plan,
NFP 2001. Neighborhoods identified, as high fire hazard by the AFP will be targeted.
Implementation/Reporting/Partners: This project will be implemented and administered by the Oregon Dept.
of Forestry. ODF will work with local fire districts (Applegate Valley Rural Fire District #9, Rural Metro
Fire Department, Williams Rural Fire Department) to continue a landowner rebate program for home
survivable space. ODF will also work with landowners to treat additional acres beyond the home. ODF will
inspect and approve the work prior to landowner reimbursements. ODF Salem will track accomplishments
and payments. In addition, the Applegate Partnership has begun monitoring actual acres of fuel hazard
reduction work accomplished on the ground on both private and public lands, as part of the Applegate Fire
Plan. The Applegate River Watershed Council is assisting in monitoring of ground treatments for
effectiveness and re-entry requirements on private lands. All partners will assist in continued public outreach,
which has proven very successful to date. Work will be coordinated to complement other projects, such as
Lomakatsi and REACH. The community of the Applegate has come together around the AFP, both in
working together on neighborhood fuel reduction projects as well as in organizing emergency
communications systems. Private landowners, where joint ownership boundaries exist, are also beginning to
collaborate with federal land managers on fuel reductions.
Time Frames: Winter 2003 through June 2005.
Amounts/Activities/equipment: We are requesting funding to cover 600 acres, at least half of which will be
for new “defensible space” work. In the course of our 2002 grant, we are seeing an approximate 50-50 mix in
around-the-home work and out-acres, as residents become more understanding of the need for fewer fuels on
the ground. Participating landowners have a choice of completing the work themselves or hiring a contractor.
Mitigation around homes typically involves hand thinning and pruning of trees and brush. The waste is
chipped, burned, used as firewood, or hauled to a recycling center. Projects that extend beyond the survivable
space combine hand and mechanical treatments as described in the Applegate Fire Plan, depending upon the
aspect and vegetation types.
Outcomes: To reduce losses to property and surrounding forestland from wildfire, reduce fire starts through
landowner awareness and reduction of flammable vegetation, and provide greater safety for landowners and
firefighters. The positive effect of creating defensible space around rural homes was realized during the
Squire’s Peak fire of July 2002 when firefighters were able to fight the fire lines instead of constructing fuel
breaks around the interface homes. We can increase community awareness of fire dangers by continuing this
program so that more and more homes in the high-risk Applegate are defensible, at the same time working
together toward better forest health in our watershed.
Income: None anticipated.
Environmental, cultural and historical resource requirements: Most of this project focuses on areas
immediately around homes and driveways. No environmental, cultural and historical resource requirements
are anticipated in these areas.
Response:
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:
Grant funds over the past two years have been used as an incentive for increasing numbers of
Applegate landowners to mitigate hazardous fuels around homes and adjacent forestlands. Approx. 200 more
homes would be funded under this FY2004 program; this snowballing participation only increases
community knowledge and capacity of fire issues, thereby decreasing some of our fire risk. Mitigating
hazardous fuels around homes and strategy areas will improve the survivability of the structures, public and
firefighter safety, and reduce acres burned by allowing firefighters to focus resources on controlling the fire.
Much of the watershed’s interface is checker-boarded with BLM and Forest Service lands, as well as with
private timber industry lands. All values-at-risk realize higher levels of protection from wildfire as a result of
defensible space work.
This project focuses on implementation of the Applegate Fire Plan throughout the Applegate watershed. The
first step in restoring a fire-adapted ecosystem is to gain the understanding, acceptance, and support of the
local communities, and the Applegate Fire Plan, plus our current incentive project has increased the level of
awareness among interface residents by drawing them into the planning effort and by demonstrating
strategies in their neighborhoods. The Applegate has an active fire-network involving all of the local, state
and federal agencies and community groups. Fire education programs are constantly being developed and
offered to the community. A condition of the landowner rebate is that they agree to maintain the fuel
treatment area and promote education in this field.
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 other 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:
Many landowners will complete the work themselves, but over the past two years we have found
that many local contractors are very busy as a result of the increased interest in fire issues in the watershed.
The Applegate Fire Plan provided listings of local work resources available for hire, hints on how to hire a
contractor, and most importantly, the various methods of treatment and how they might be applied to our
landscape. There is strong evidence that the workload will continue after this grant is complete due to the
increased awareness of landowners resulting from the whole community fire planning process.
To date, little of the thinned material generated has been utilized off site, mainly due to the species and
scattered nature of the work. However, other local partners are targeting projects to utilize both biomass and
small diameter materials and if they are successful, our local fire network will make information on these
endeavors available to the community.
The Applegate Fire Plan and the community’s active participation have provided a visible demonstration of
effective collaboration to other communities in the area and around the west. This incentive grant allows the
landowner to have something personal to share with others about the process. The Applegate Fire Plan has
been documented as a model community collaborative effort, and the AFP project coordinators continue to
travel to and work with other communities to develop their own plans.
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).
The Applegate Fire Plan brought 24 partners together last year to develop a fire protection strategy
for the Applegate Watershed. The completed plan addresses fuel reduction, fire suppression, and emergency
communications systems. Community outreach meetings reached over 30 neighborhoods, creating
tremendous interest in all of these areas, especially fuel hazard mitigation on private lands. This project is
vital to the continued success of the implementation of the Applegate Fire Plan by providing both an
incentive for landowners to become more involved in the fire plan, and as well as the means to accomplish
projects identified through the planning process.
The high level of cooperation among federal, state, and local government agencies and community members
during the AFP process is continuing as we work on implementation. Many other aspects of fire-related
issues are benefiting from this collaboration, such as the investigation of a 2-county emergency call-down
telephone system, and improved fire suppression agreements.
The list of partners beyond the local communities participating in the plan: Applegate Partnership, Applegate
River Watershed Council, Applegate Valley Rural Fire District #9, BLM (Ashland and Grants Pass Resource
Areas), Jackson County (Building Dept, Emergency Services, GIS, Planning and Sheriff), Josephine County
(Building Safety, Forestry, Planning, and Sheriff), NMFS, Oregon State (Fish and Wildlife, Forestry Medford and GP Units, Environment Quality), Rural Metro Fire Dept, USFWS, US Forest Service (Rogue
River and Siskiyou NF), Williams Creek Watershed Council, and Williams Fire Department.
Response:
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:
This proposal was coordinated primarily with the project coordinators of the Applegate Fire Plan,
including BLM, USFS, Applegate Fire Dist #9, REACH, Rural/Metro Fire Department, Lomakatsi
Restoration, the Applegate Partnership, and our two watershed councils. Promotion of this fuel reduction
work program is primarily accomplished through a local newsletter, the Applegator, and word of mouth.
Support for this program has been tremendous in FY 2001/02; hence our request to continue. It’s anticipated
that these funds will be committed within a twelve-month period, reaching an additional 300+ households.
Due to the high cost of fuel reduction work in the Applegate, landowners would be rebated a flat rate per acre
via this grant. The local fire chiefs report working with many landowners who are doing this defensible space
work without requesting the financial rebate, suggesting that the funding be left for those who cannot
complete the work on their own.
As stated in Section #1, the first step in restoring a fire-adapted ecosystem is to gain the understanding,
acceptance, and support of the local communities. We have experienced very little opposition to fuel hazard
reduction work to date. The current project will continue to increase the level of awareness among interface
residents of the challenges of true stewardship of the land, as it provides one-on-one education. And, the
implementation, effectiveness and validation monitoring components of the Applegate Fire Plan are all multiparty, with agencies as well as local residents following our efforts to reduce fire hazard in the watershed, and
return our ecosystems to fire-dependency.
Enclosure 3C - Project Work Form
Tasks
Time Frame
Responsible Party
Consult with BLM and Forest Service
regarding the location of current and
planned work
Fall 2003 through June 2006
ODF, cooperators
Consult with Applegate Fire Plan to
identify landowners to be targeted for
participation.
Fall 2003 through June 2006
Applegate Fire Plan
cooperators, ODF
On-site consultation to generate site
plan, and cost share agreement
Fall 2003 through June 2006
ODF, Applegate Fire District
#9
Completion of individual projects
Fall 2003 through June 2006
Landowners/contractors
Final inspection of completed work
for approval.
Fall 2003 through June 2006
ODF, Applegate Fire Dist #9
Rebate payment to landowner
Fall 2003 through June 2006
ODF
Prepare final project report
December 2006
ODF
Enclosure 3D Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Applicant:
ODF
Partner 1:
Partner 2:
Rural Fire Depts Private Landowners
Total
Personnel
29,895
Subtotal
29,895
29,895
Fringe Benefits
11,605
Subtotal
11,605
11,605
Travel
Subtotal
Equipment
5,000
Subtotal
5,000
5,000
Supplies
500
Subtotal
500
500
Contractual
600 acres @$330/acre
rebate
198,000
66,000
Subtotal
198,000
66,000
264,000
$245,000
$66,000
$311,000
Other
Subtotal
Total Costs
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.