Enclosure 4A - Project Summary Form
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE PROJECTS
Application for Fuels Utilization and Marketing Projects
Applicant
Applicant/Organization:
Rural Technology Initiative (RTI)/University of Washington
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
(206) 616 - 3218
(206) 685 - 0790
rti@u.washington.edu
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
Box 352100, University of Washington, College of Forest Resources (CFR), Seattle, WA 98195
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Bruce Lippke, RTI Director and CFR Faculty
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Rural Technology Initiative(RTI)
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
(206) 616 - 3218
(206) 685 - 0790
blippke@u.washington.edu
Project Information
Project Title:
Demonstration of Alternative Strategies to Reduce Insect and Fire Risk
Proposed Project Start Date:
Proposed Project End Date:
October 1, 2002
September 30, 2005
Federal Funding Request:
Total Project Funding:
$302,627.00
$378,397.00
Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize:
No
Brief Project Description:
A set of 9 treatment variations for fuel reduction, slash disposal, and controlled burning with a 10th
no treatment control area will be created on the Ahtanum watershed in order to assess 5 response
variables: insects, fire risk, disease, harvest economics, and local employment. The goal is to have
3 10-acre replications for each treatment type to comprise 30 treatment sites (randomized grid
design) on 300 acres. If costs become prohibitive, treatment substitution will be allowed pending
review by the Board of Natural Resources. Treatments include: 1)thin-from-below removing all
stems < 9", 2)50% BA removal from below leaving the largest trees, and 3)leave 40-50 BA/acre in
the largest trees favoring ponderosa pine. Each harvest prescription has 3 slash alternatives:
1)slash left within harvest areas, 2)slash chipped and hauled, or 3)slash underburned after harvest.
Assessments will be made based upon collected field data and modeled predictions. An
interpretive area and portable display will be created for educational demonstrations. Response
findings will augment existing DNR market research in development of a Glenwood/Ahtanum
Forest Plan.
Project Location (latitude/longitude if applicable):
Ahtanum Watershed
County:
Congressional District:
Yakima
4th
If the applicant is an unincorporated area, define the geographic area being represented:
WA DNR forestlands in the Ahtanum Watershed located west of Yakima.
Enclosure 4B (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
Past practices of overstory removals and fire suppression have left many forests of the inland west
overstocked with historically uncharacteristic species mixtures that are susceptible to insect infestations and
large-scale mortality. Fire suppression also has dramatically increased the risk of destructive fire events.
Large areas of the forests in the Ahtanum watershed are in this condition creating a threat to the forest
ecosystem and to the economic stability of surrounding communities. Fuel reduction treatments that recover
sufficient economic value to make them feasible on a large scale while reducing fire risk are needed. Such a
capability would allow for the restoration of ecological integrity of the forest, the maintenance of a
sustainable local economy, and the reduction of the potential for large destructive fires. But many questions
remain unanswered in regards to such activities. Once merchantable dead, dying, and surplus stems are
removed from forest stands, what slash and sub-merchantable log disposal techniques provide best economic
and environmental outcomes? Which treatments are most likely to reduce future insect infestations? Which
treatments are most effective for reducing the risk of forest fires? Can selective logging regimes be designed
to change tree species composition and their stocking levels? In an economic sense, can slash and nonmerchantable logs have recoverable value if chipped for use as fuel to generate steam or electricity? This
research project will examine these questions and demonstrate findings through the creation of an enduring
series of research sites that provide data for a publicly accessible educational forestry interpretive display.
Annual response measurements will be used to upgrade interpretive offerings. The project would be located
on WA DNR forestlands in the Ahtanum watershed where aggressive management is planned to prevent
further insect infestation and destructive wild fires. The demonstration site will be a valuable educational
resource for agency and elected officials, research scientists, forestry professionals, educators, and other
concerned publics. Investigation results will be useful to the Gifford Pinchot and Wenatchee NF and to
private industry forestlands and the Yakama Nation where similar forest health problems are present. Project
design is the result of collaboration between the DNR, the UW/WSU RTI, the Yakama Nation, and the USDI
BIA. This project is proposed as a three year study. In the first year, 27 10-acre harvest units and 3 10-acre
controls will be selected using a randomized grid configuration. Each parcel will display either a different
treatment or the control. All harvest units and display parcels will be offered as a timber sale for competive
bid to be harvested in the summer of 2003. A control (no treatment) will be compared to three harvest
prescriptions; each with one of three slash treatments. Five response variables will be considered: insects, fire
risk, disease, harvest economics, and local employment. The three harvest prescriptions are 1) remove all
trees < 9"DBH, 2) remove 50% BA from below, and 3) leave 40-50 BA leaving largest trees favoring
ponderosa pine. The three slash treatments are 1)slash left, 2)slash chipped and hauled, and 3) slash
underburned after harvest. If cost estimates are excessive, alternatives will be considered pending review by
the Board of Natural Resources. Slash burns to occur fall 2003. In winter of 2003-4, modelled analysis of
treatment simulations will be completed. Spring 2004, interpretive site is constructed with educational
signage (from modeled analysis) to explain treatment alternatives. Summer 2004, field measurements to
determine level of insect activity, fuel loads, and disease presence for each treatment site. Summer 2004,
interpretive area to open to the public with dedication from from local tribal, community, and agency leaders.
Fall 2004 preliminary report submitted with environmental and economic comparisons of treatment
alternatives. Spring 2005, interpretive signage updated with field data from summer 2004. Summer 2005,
second round of field measurements taken. Fall 2005 final report submitted and signage updated for display
of new field data. A logical extension of this project would be to continue monitoring beyond the project
duration. Another logical extension of this project would be to secure support for continuing maintenance of
the interpretive area.
Response:
Enclosure 4B (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. Increasing Local Capacity (35 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
year-round and seasonal jobs)? How will this proposal link to other projects (or proposed projects) to create year-round jobs?
B. Will biomass or forest fuels be utilized; if so, in what manner and how much?
C. Which, if any, private businesses will participate?
D. To what extent will this project be offered to serve as a model for other communities or businesses, or natural landscapes?
Response: Current
DNR proposals call for 80 mmbf/year of harvest to result from salvage of damaged or at
risk trees from state forestlands in Klickitat and Yakima Counties. In 2001, the WA DNR recieved funding
from the Multi-Agency National Plan Community Assistance and Economic Action Program to undertake a
large scale marketing/feasibility study for this area. The UW is presently conducting this study. Research is
needed to support this effort that assesses environmental and economic benefits of treatment alternatives for
these forests. This important research could provide broad public educational benefit through the
development of a fire treatment interpretive site. Research findings will be valuable to adjacent forestland
managers on federal, tribal and industrial ownerships. The DNR, the BIA, and the Yakama Nation DNR have
been cooperators in the development of the study design. Yakama Forest Products is presently conducting a
feasibility study for the development of a co-generation facilty that would process submerchantable timber.
Findings from this study will contribute to this effort. Harvest increases on DNR lands and other ownerships
in the Ahtanum that could result from better information on fuel treatments would mean increased
employment opportunities and tax revenues for this area. The unemployment rate in this area is double digit.
The DNR estimates that as many as 200 jobs could be created or sustained in the short term from harvest
activites on state lands. Long term, that number may decline by half, however, development of value-added
processes such as co-generation could mean longer term additional job creation. As this project progresses,
efforts will be made to identify and contact all interested parties as part of an educational outreach strategy.
2. Reducing fire risk. (30 points)
Describe how the proposal promotes reduction of risk in high hazard areas and communities or natural landscapes.
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 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 fuels conditions.
A.
B.
Response: The
Ahtanum Watershed has been identified by the WA DNR, the Yakama Nation DNR, the USDI
BIA, and community leaders as an area with a high risk of forest fire. Research is needed to better understand
the ecological and economic benefits associated with treatment alternatives that strive to reduce density,
diminish mortality, convert species mixtures to pine/fir (away from present mixed conifer), and reintroduce
low intensity fire. New modeling and inventory technologies could be helpful in planning, implementing,
and monitoring such fire risk reduction comparisons. An opportunity exists to combine research and
technology to create a display of the comparative benefits of fuel reduction and slash disposal treatments.
While the need for fuel reductions in forests like the Ahtanum appears to be widely recognized, there is
confusion amongst forest managers and the general public about how to proceed. Fuel reduction treatments
are often costly. Alternative treatment benefits vs costs are not well understood. For risk reduction
treatments to be effective significant reduction of fuel loads, moisture competition, harmful insect
infestations, and disease should result. Reintroduction of low intensity fire may be beneficial for maintenance
of open healthy forests but sufficient fuel loads must be removed before controlled burns may be safely
implemented. Utilization of presently submerchantable materials will reduce cost and risk associated with
controlled burning. This project will compare alternative treatments to gain better understanding of these
management issues and share conclusions with forest managers and the public. Increased knowledge will help
plan mitigation of hazardous forest fuel conditions toward restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems.
Enclosure 4B (Page 3 of 3) - Project Evaluation Criteria
3. 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: Project
design is the result of collaboration between WA DNR, the Yakama Nation DNR, the USDI
BIA, and UW/WSU faculty and staff. Industry and Forest Service with land management responsibilities in
the vicinity will be contacted upon award of the project. Community and cultural information providers will
be contacted at that time as well. No opposition to this project is anticipated or has been encountered. The
potential ecological, social, and economic benefits of this project are discussed throughout this proposal,
however, it is appropriate to add here that broader collaboration between the project cooperators is likely as
this and other multi-agency and interdisciplinary projects create new opportunities for linkages. The Rural
Technology Initiative was created as a partnership between the University of Washington College of Forest
Resources and Washington State University Department of Natural Resource Sciences to aid in the
technology of managing forests for increased timber products and environmental values in support of rural
forest-based communities. An advisory board representing rural constituents and community groups supports
and guides RTI activities. RTI staff, faculty, and supported graduate students have extensive expertise in
forestry modeling capabilities and development of technology-based training modules for delivery to rural
communities. RTI will disseminate study findings through its network of tribes, consultants, WSU
Extension agents, landowners, community organizations, and industrial associations.
.
4. Increasing interagency and intergovernmental coordination. (20 Points)
A. 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 in developing this proposal. List the
cooperators (a detailed list of cooperators will be required for projects that are funded).
B. Describe how this project implements a local intergovernmental strategy or plan, or creates such a plan. Describe the plan if
it already exists.
Response: The WA
DNR, the Yakama Nation DNR, the USDI BIA, and UW/WSU faculty and staff have
helped to create the scientific design and targeted deliverables associated with this project. If funded this
project will be executed on areas of the Ahtanum watershed that are managed by the WA DNR. WA DNR
will provide access and data support for the 300 acre research area throughout the duration of project. WA
DNR will assist in providing access for an interpretive area. The interpretive area will be open to the public,
on an appropriate schedule, for the duration of this project. A portable display could be available for broader
audiences. The interpretive and research areas may be available for continued monitoring and display after
the duration of this project pending suitable agreements for extension. This project represents a collaboration
between federal, state, and tribal professionals. This project may provide information useful to other forest
health and economic development projects within the area. This project will help the WA DNR in its effort to
create a long term harvest plan for state lands in the Ahtanum and Glenwood areas.
Enclosure 4C - Project Work Form
Tasks
Time Frame
Responsible Party
Review proposed treatment plan with
Oct 2002 to April 2003
interested parties. Detail the research
plan. Itentify sites and treatment plans.
RTI/WA, WADNR, Yakima
Tribe
Carry out treatments and prepare fire
trails
May 2003 to August 2003
DNR
Slash burn according to research plan
Oct 2003 to Nov 2003
DNR
Model future conditions for study
sights
Nov 2003 to Feb 2004
RTI/UW
Conduct field measurements and
prepare demonstration sites
March 2004 to July 2004
RTI/UW, DNR
Complete preliminary report for demo
sites
Sept 2004 to Nov 2004
RTI/UW
Complete second field measurements
June 2005 to July 2005
RTI/UW
Prepare final report and review
findings with participants
August 2005 to September 2005
RTI/UW, WADNR, Yakima
Tribe
Enclosure 4D - Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Applicant
Personnel
Salaries
$161,170.00
$49,372.00
Subtotal
$161,170.00
$49,372.00
Fringe Benefits
$31,088.00
$10,763.00
Subtotal
$31,088.00
$10,763.00
Partner 1
(WA St. DNR)
Partner 2
$0.00
$0.00
$210,542.00
$0.00
$210,542.00
$0.00
$41,851.00
$0.00
$0.00
$41,851.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6,000.00
$0.00
$6,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$30,000.00
$0.00
$30,000.00
*APA
Travel
Field Trips
$6,000.00
Subtotal
$6,000.00
$0.00
*(APA) $0.00
*(APA) $0.00
*(APA) $0.00
Total
Equipment
Subtotal
$0.00
Supplies
$6,000.00
Subtotal
$6,000.00
Contractual
Display construction
$30,000.00
Subtotal
$30,000.00
Other
Research Assistant fees
Indirect
Subtotal
$8,762.00
$59,607.00
$68,369.00
$15,635.00
$15,635.00
*(APA) $0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,762.00
$75,242.00
$84,004.00
Total Costs
$302,627.00
$75,770.00
*(APA) $0.00
$0.00
$378,397.00
$0.00
$0.00
Project (Program) Income1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
*(APA) $0.00
*(APA) $0.00
*(APA) $0.00
*APA: Already Planned Activity
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.
$0.00