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:
FAX:
Email:
(541) 346-5131
(541) 346-5138
karen_findtner@orsa.uoregon.edu
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
Office of Research Services & Administration, 5219 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97503-5219
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Charles Spencer, Program Director
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
(541) 346-0676
(541) 346-2040
cspencer@oregon.uoregon.edu
Project Information
Project Title: Building community and interagency capacity for employment results monitoring of the NFP
Proposed Project Start Date:
Proposed Project End Date:
September 15, 2003
September 14, 2004
Federal Funding Request:
Total Project Funding:
$70,000
$87,768
Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize:
No
Brief Project Description:
With this proposal, we are requesting a third year of funding to increase community and agency capacity to
create quality jobs by provide community-based and regional monitoring tools and information. Monitoring
is the way that we can learn from experiments and make mid-course corrections. To assist at the community
level, we will disseminate our employment results monitoring guide and expand our technical assistance from
three to four communities. At the regional level, we will build on our current regional economic monitoring
of the NFP by: (1) working with the federal and state agencies to incorporate lessons from EWP and agency
monitoring into future planning, (2) identifying monitoring gaps and strategies to fill those gaps, and (3)
expanding EWP monitoring to include qualitative data (esp. interviews) that can help explain patterns found
during years 1 and 2. The project will help communities and agencies to: (1) understand progress towards
quality jobs in ecosystem management; (2) focus contractor and worker 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, emphasis on E. OR
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 National Fire Plan funds over the past 9 months, the Ecosystem Workforce Program (EWP)
has: (1) created a draft employment results monitoring guide for rural communities and local agency partners,
(2) been assisting partners in Lake County and northeast Oregon in implementing NFP employment results
monitoring; and (3) complied preliminary results of a regional-level (OR&WA) monitoring of procurement
and hiring by the Forest Service, BLM, and Fish & Wildlife Service. In addition, using leveraged funds, in
May, we held a workshop to introduce our employment results guide to communities in central Oregon. This
workshop has led partners in central Oregon to ask for assistance in developing a NFP monitoring program.
Response:
Assuming that we receive FY 2002 NFP funding, by September 2003, we will have: (1) revised and
disseminated a community-based monitoring guide with the Watershed Research and Training Center
(Hayfork, CA); (2) worked with three communities to begin to develop monitoring programs; and (3)
completed two years of regional level monitoring that included procurement, hiring, and granting by the
Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, and Department of Forestry.
Our efforts to date suggest several key next steps. At a local level, communities and agency partners need
technical assistance to develop quality jobs programs that incorporate monitoring. At a regional level, agency
partners and non-profits need to evaluate the results of EWP and agency monitoring, and consider how
lessons can be incorporated into future planning and implementation. In addition, partners need to identify
monitoring gaps and develop systems to address them. To these ends, we are requesting $70,000 out of a total
project budget of $88,254 to undertake the following between September 15, 2003 and September 14, 2004:
Community-level assistance
 Disseminate the monitoring guide via the Web, mail, and conferences to community forestry and
economic development organizations, local government, and natural resource agencies.
 Provide technical assistance to four communities to integrate employment results monitoring into
efforts to build contractor and worker capacity to perform high quality fuels hazard reduction work.
Regional-level monitoring
 Work with non-profit and agency partners to incorporate lessons from monitoring into future planning
and implementation.
 Work with agency and non-profit partners to identify monitoring gaps and strategies to fill them.
 Repeat the most effective components of the regional monitoring for fiscal year 2003.
 Collect qualitative information from agencies, contractors, and grantees to explain patterns that
emerged during earlier phases of the monitoring
Our partners in this project include: regional offices of the Forest Service, BLM, and USFWS, Lake County
Resources, Inc., Sustainable Northwest, Fremont National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue
Mountain Demonstration Area, Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program, Wallowa Resources, Central
Oregon Intergovermental Council, Central Oregon Partnership for Wildfire Risk Reduction, Deschutes
National Forest, Oregon Department of Forestry, and Watershed Research & Training Center.
By the end of this third year, we should see a critical mass of community and agency leadership that has
increased: (1) community and regional monitoring of jobs outcomes; (2) rural community capacity to
undertake quality ecosystem management including fire hazard reduction; and (3) the 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 gabs are being
addressed locally and regionally.
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 to evaluate local
business and workforce capacity for fire hazard reduction, and to plan to increase capacity as needed. As
communities develop fire strategies or cooperative fuel treatments, they can use our guide to incorporate
monitoring to track the economic effects of implementation and ensure that contracted work develops and
uses local capacity. Our guide offers approach for tracking the economic health, administrative needs, skillbase, 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, northeast
Oregon, and central Oregon. Our fourth community will also be one with high hazard areas, perhaps in
southern Oregon.
Finally, our guide is being developed and disseminated in conjunction with a guide that the Watershed
Research and Training Center, in Hayfork California is developing that will include information about
monitoring investment, by-product utilization, and ecological effects. This will allow communities to
consider not only the economic effects but also 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:
As suggested above, this project will increase community capacity and improve the local economy by helping
communities and agencies evaluate the effects of their fire hazard reduction efforts on the local economy and
considering how agency and community action might increase those effects.
Our guide and technical assistance 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 strategies.
Our employment results guide is designed as a model for a wide variety of communities, especially those
with nearby federal land. In addition to the communities where we will provide concentrated technical
assistance, we will disseminate the guide widely via the Internet, mail, and at regional and national meetings
and conferences such as the annual meeting of the National Network of Forest Practitioners. We will also use
the 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 guides and technical assistance involve federal, state, and local agencies at the
community level. Local agency personnel work with partners to develop the monitoring plan; agencies
provide much of the information required for the monitoring. Our regional level monitoring involves the
Forest Service, BLM, ODF, and USFWS. Agency personnel helped develop the monitoring plan and have
provided key data about agency hiring and procurement. Our hiring monitoring will look at, for example,
new hires, local hires, wages, and job duration. Our procurement analysis will consider, for example, the
amount and type of work contracted, how contracts were structured, and the location and type of contractors
awarded work. Our grant monitoring, consider investments in rural communities and work opportunities.
Discussions with agency personnel and non-profit partners have suggested the next steps proposed here. The
BLM, Forest Service, and US FWS will also be involved in the process of identifying lessons learned from
the EWP and agency monitoring, identifying monitoring gaps, and developing strategies to fill them.
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, Watershed Research and Training Center, and Oregon Economic and
Community Development Department.
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.
As suggested above, 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 and the University of Oregon. Lake County Resource
Initiative, our partners in Northeast Oregon (Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program, Wallowa Resources,
Blue Mountain Demonstration Area, etc.), COPWR, the Watershed Research and Training Center in Hayfork,
CA will be implanting 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.
Enclosure 3C - Project Work Form
Tasks
Distribute employment results monitoring
guide
--Via World Wide Web, mail, and conference
attendance
Provide technical assistance in development
and implementation employment results
monitoring program
--Assist Lake County; Northeast Oregon
--Assist Central Oregon
--Assist new community
Repeat effective components of regional of
FY 2001/02 monitoring for FY 2003
--Develop research plan
--Gather data
--Analyze
--Report
Identify gaps in monitoring and develop
strategies to identify gaps.
--Meet with regional agency and non-profit
partners to review state of NFP monitoring
--Develop strategies for filling gaps
Collect qualitative data to illuminate patterns
in pre-existing data used to date
--Develop research plan
--Gather data (interview agency & non-profit
staff and contractors)
--Analyze
--Report
Time Frame
--September 2003-September 2004
Responsible Party
Director of Research & Policy
EWP Program Director
--September 2003-March 2004
--September 2003-September 2004
--December 2003-September 2004
Director of Research & Policy
supervising a graduate student
--September-October 2003
--November 2003-January 2004
--January 2004- May 2004
--July 2004
Director of Research & Policy
--September 2003-September 2004
--January 2004-September 2004
Director of Research & Policy
supervising a graduate student
--September-December 2003
--November 2003-April 2004
--April 2004- June 2004
--August 2004
Enclosure 3D Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Personnel
Salary
Subtotal
Fringe Benefits
Fringe Benefits
Subtotal
Applicant
Partner 1
Partner 2
Total
(Ford Foundation
Grant)
26,871
(U of O In-Kind)
6,976
26,871
6,976
18,710
3,558
673
22,940
18,710
3,558
673
22,940
5,000
400
5,400
5,000
400
5,400
1,000
1,000
6,490
6,490
35,529
Travel
Subtotal
Equipment
Subtotal
Supplies
Subtotal
4,490
4,490
0
0
55,071
10,533
Contractual
Subtotal
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Cost @ 32%
14,929
Total Costs
70,000
67,004
3,371
1,400
2,465
20,764
13,904
3,865
87,768
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.