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: University of Oregon
Phone: (541) 346-5131
FAX: (541) 346-5138
Email: Research_Services@orsa.uoregon.edu
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip): Research Services and Administration, 5219 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
97403-5219
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title): Cassandra Moseley, Director of Research and Policy
Organization/Jurisdiction: Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon
Phone: (541) 346-4545
FAX: (541) 346-2040
Email: cmoseley@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Project Information
Project Title: Increasing the business and employment impacts of the NFP.
Proposed Project Start Date: October 15, 2003
Proposed Project End Date: October 14, 2004
Federal Funding Request: $68, 398
Total Project Funding: $82,091
Are you submitting multiple projects? NO If so, please explain and prioritize:
Brief Project Description:
This project will increase community and agency capacity to create quality jobs by providing communitybased and regional monitoring tools and local-level technical assistance. Monitoring is the way that we can
learn from experiments and make mid-course corrections. To assist at the community level, we will provide
technical assistance in three communities to: (1) undertake monitoring to track local worker and contractor
capacity for hazard fuel reduction and the utilization of that capacity; and (2) address gaps identified through
the monitoring. At the regional level, we will build on our current regional economic monitoring of the NFP
by: (1) working with federal, state agencies, and community based-forestry organizations to incorporate
lessons from EWP, agency, and local monitoring; and (2) filling monitoring gaps identified by community
and agency partners as a result of the EWP’s Business and Employment Effects of the NFP monitoring report.
This project will help communities and agencies to: (1) understand progress towards quality jobs in
ecosystem management; (2) focus contractor and work assistance to meet real needs; (3) focus procurement
innovation and granting to provide quality jobs for rural communities and forest workers.
Project Location (latitude/longitude if applicable):
County:
Congressional District:
OR, WA, and N. California
Lane
OR 4
Project Type: Check appropriate project type. More than one type may be checked. If only Box (4) is checked, use Enclosure 4.
(1)
(2)
Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Project
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:
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
Using FY 2001 National Fire Plan funds, the Ecosystem Workforce Program (EWP): (1) created a
guidebook for local, multi-party for socioeconomic and biophysical monitoring of the National Fire Plan
(NFP); (2) assisted partners in Lake County, OR and Northeast Oregon in the development and
implementation of NFP contracting monitoring; and (3) undertook regional monitoring of NFP procurement
and hiring for FY 2001 and wrote, Business and Employment Impacts of the National Fire Plan. (The
monitoring guidebook and regional report are available at http://ewp.uoregon.edu.)
Our efforts to date suggest several key next steps: At the local level, communities and agency partners need
technical assistance to develop quality jobs program that incorporate monitoring to track local fire hazard
reduction business and worker capacity. At a regional level, agency and non-profit partners need to evaluate
the results of EWP, local, and agency monitoring, and consider how lessons can be incorporated into future
planning and implementation. In addition, we need to address several of the monitoring questions that have
been raised about the rural business and employment impacts of the NFP. We are requesting $68,398 out of a
total project cost of $82,091 to take these next steps.
Community-level assistance
o Provide focused technical assistance to three communities to integrate employment results monitoring
into efforts to build contractor and worker capacity to perform high quality fuels hazard reduction work,
increase utilization of that capacity.
o Disseminate EWP’s monitoring and contractor training tools via informal consultations and participation
in workshops and conferences regionally and nationally.
Regional-level monitoring
o Convene and work with regional non-profit and agency partners to incorporate lessons from monitoring
into future planning and implementation.
o Work with agency and non-profit partners to identify monitoring gaps and fill those gaps.
o Undertake follow up regional monitoring that addresses monitoring gaps that partners have identified.
Monitoring questions might include: (1) Will the trend we saw in FY 2001 continue? (2) What was the
impact of fire borrowing on contractors, workers, and businesses during FY 2002? (3) Does the use of
Title IV differ from Region 5 and Region 6 of the Forest Service? (4) Can we sort out the overall impacts
from the impacts of the Title IV authority on particular isolated rural communities? (5) How have the
Department of Interior agencies besides the BLM made use of the Title IV authority? (6) What are the
business and employment impacts of National Fire Plan grants?
Our partners in this project include: regional offices of the Forest Service, BLM, and USFWS, Lake County
Resources, Sustainable Northwest, Fremont NF, Wallowa-Whitman NF, Grande Ronde Model Watershed
Program, Wallowa Resources, Central Oregon intergovernmental Council, Central Oregon Partnership for
Wildlife Risk Reduction, Oregon Department of Forestry, and the Watershed Research and Training Center.
The outcomes of this project will be increased: (1) community and regional monitoring of jobs outcomes; (2)
rural community capacity to undertake quality ecosystem management including fire hazard reduction; (3)
ability of agency, community, and nonprofit partners to direct programs to meet the ecological and economic
objectives of the NFP. Our final report will describe tasks undertaken and lessons learned and provide the
results of the regional employment results monitoring, the gaps identified in the monitoring, and how those
gaps are being addressed locally and regionally.
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: This
project will help reduce fire risk by providing rural communities with tools and technical
assistance to evaluate local business and workforce capacity for fire hazard reduction. Our technical
assistance will help communities develop quality jobs monitoring programs, and fill gaps between hazard
reduction efforts and the local business and worker capacity to perform that work.
In addition, we will disseminate our monitoring guidebook through workshops and informal consultations,
which will give a broader group of communities tools to track the economic effects of implementation and
ensure that work to use and develops local capacity. Our guide offers approaches for tracking the economic
health, administrative needs, skill-base, and equipment of contracting businesses, which communities can use
to target business and worker development efforts. Further, this information can be used to help agencies
structure contracts (especially size and duration) to match local capacity. This sort of monitoring helps
maximize rural community benefit while developing local capacity to implement fuel reduction projects.
Our technical assistance is focused in communities with high fire hazard areas—Lake County, and central
Oregon, and one other high fire hazard community.
Finally, we developed our monitoring guidebook with the Watershed Research and Training Center, from
Hayfork, California, and it includes tools for monitoring investment, by-product utilization, and ecological
effects. This will allow communities to consider both the economic effects and the ecological consequences
of fire hazard reduction and other NFP projects.
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:
This project will increase community capacity and improve local economies by helping communities and
agencies evaluate the effects of their fire hazard reduction efforts on the local economy and help them
consider how agency and community action increase local hazard reduction capacity.
Our technical assistance and monitoring guidebook helps communities set goals and develop strategies for
developing a local quality jobs program. It then suggests processes for measuring progress and provides
sample measures and information about how to collect data related to those measures. This allows
communities to evaluate progress towards quality jobs and make adjustments to improve the effectiveness of
quality jobs programs.
In addition to the communities where we will provide concentrated technical assistance, we will disseminate
the guide widely through informal consultations and at regional and national meetings and conferences such
as the annual meeting of the National Network of Forest Practitioners. We will also use our existing
networks and those of the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department to disseminate our
guide to rural development practitioners and local government entities in Oregon.
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: Both
the community-level monitoring assistance and the regional monitoring depend on and build
interagency collaboration. Our local-level technical assistance will involve federal, state, and local agencies
at the community level. Agency personnel work with partners to develop the monitoring plan; agencies
provide much of the information required for the monitoring.
At a regional level, we plan to convene and work with federal NFP agencies and key state agencies such as
the Department of Forestry and OECDD as well as key community forestry partners to evaluate the results of
EWP, local, and regional monitoring, and determine how lessons can be incorporated into future planning and
implementation.
Our regional level monitoring will involve the Forest Service, BLM, and USFWS and, we hope, other
Department of Interior agencies and Oregon Department of Forestry. Agency personnel have identified
several of the key follow-up questions listed on in the “narrative description” above and will provide data.
Discussions with agency personnel and non-profit partners have suggested the steps proposed here.
Our cooperators in this effort will include: regional offices of the Forest Service, BLM, and USFWS, Oregon
Department of Forestry, Lake County Resources, Inc., Sustainable Northwest, Fremont National Forest,
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program, Wallowa Resources, Central
Oregon Intergovermental Council, Deschutes NF, and Watershed Research and Training Center.
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: In
addition to the local and regional agency involvement described above, our work with local
partners in Northeast Oregon and Lake County and other community organizations and partnerships such as
the Watershed Research and Training Center, and Central Oregon Partnership for Wildfire Risk Reduction
(COPWR) and federal agencies led to the next steps proposed here.
Numerous local and regional partners will be collaborating with us in both the regional and community
monitoring projects. The Ecosystem Workforce Program will provide a 20% match for this project, using
funds from the Ford Foundation. Lake County Resource Initiative and COPWR will be implementing quality
jobs monitoring with our assistance. We will develop a similar arrangement with local partners in the
low/mid capacity community where we expand our technical assistance efforts.
Benefits of the Project: This grant will provide tools for communities, non-profits, and agencies to
collaboratively track progress towards the development of quality jobs in ecosystem management, especially
related to the National Fire Plan. With this information, communities and local agencies will be able to: (1)
focus contractor and worker assistance to meet real needs; (2) focus procurement innovation and granting to
provide quality jobs for rural communities and forest workers. This will increase the economic and
ecological impacts of the National Fire Plan.
Enclosure 3C - Project Work Form
Tasks
Time Frame
Responsible Party
Hold meeting with community-based forestry
and Forest Service and Dept. of Interior staff
to review and address impacts of the Business
and Employment Impacts report.
Quarter (Q) 1
EWP, Director of Research & Policy
Update monitoring using data from FY 2002
and FY 2003. Focus on questions of impacts
of fire suppression borrowing and differences
between R5 and R6. Expand focus to include
procurement by Dept. of Interior agencies.
Acquire data—Q 1 and Q 2
Analysis—Q 1,2,3
Report—Q 4
EWP, Director of Research
supervising a graduate student
assistant, & Watershed Research and
Training Center (acquire data in for
California)
Attend national-level meetings to report on
findings initial report and discuss approaches
to increase fire hazard reduction and rural
community benefit
Entire grant period
EWP, Director of Research & Policy
Organize regional level meeting of
community-based forestry and Forest Service
and Dept. of Interior staff to discuss
monitoring report
Q4
EWP, Director of Research & Policy
Provide technical assistance in development
and implementation of employment results
monitoring
--Assist Lake County
--Assist Central Oregon
--Assist new community
Disseminate EWP’s monitoring and contractor
training tools via informal consultations and
participation in workshops and conferences
regionally and nationally.
NOTE: Actual dates in timeline depends on
when grant is awarded. Work would begin as
soon as grant awarded and continue for 12
months (4 quarters).
EWP, Program Director
--Entire grant period
--Entire grant period
-- Q 2, 3, 4
Entire grant period
EWP, Program Director and Director
of Research & Policy
Enclosure 3D Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Personnel
Subtotal
Applicant
Partner 1
Partner 2
Total
24,614
(Ford Foundation)
6,807
31,421
24,614
6,807
31,421
16,011
2,791
18,802
16,011
2,791
18,802
5,500
1,500
7,000
5,500
1,500
7,000
7,388
1,350
8,738
7,388
1,350
8,738
53,513
14,885
12,448
1,245
65,961
16,130
68,398
13,693
82,091
Fringe Benefits
Subtotal
Travel
Subtotal
Equipment
Subtotal
Supplies
Subtotal
Contractual
Subtotal
Total Direct Costs
Indirect costs 32% of
excludingtotal
on tuition—
standard
U of O-federal rate
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.