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.statte.or.us
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
2600 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97310
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Gordon Foster, Unit Forester
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Oregon Department of Forestry, Central Oregon District, John Day Unit
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
541-575-1139
541-575-2253
gfoster@odf.state.or.us
Project Information
Project Title:
Granite, Middle Fork Community Vegetation Management
Proposed Project Start Date:
Proposed Project End Date:
October 1, 2002
September 30, 2005
Federal Funding Request:
Total Project Funding:
$101,850
$123,150
Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize:
Brief Project Description:
Provide assistance to non-industrial landowners in the Middle Fork of the John Day, Bates, Austin, Galena,
Susanville, Greenhorn and Granite areas for vegetation management to create defensible space and to reduce
fire hazard and improve forest health in the adjoining timber stands. The funds would be used as a cost share
incentive to allow landowners to make a single entry into stands and treat the total stand to meet the objective
of reducing the fire hazard and improving forest health.
Project Location (latitude/longitude if applicable):
County:
Congressional District:
John Day Unit
Grant
Walden, #2
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:
Small unincorporated communities in northeastern Grant County
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
Response:





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
Response:
Project Location: The areas are located in and around the unincorporated communities of Galena, Susanville,
Bates, Austin, Greenhorn, and Granite adjoining the Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur and Umatilla National
Forests.
Project Implementation: In this area the commercial harvest provides little in the way of profit to the
landowner. The landowner can sometimes make a small profit by doing a commercial thinning. This leaves
the rest of the activities such as precommecial thinning and reduction of the total fuel hazard undone. This
leads to a continued fuel buildup and a decrease in forest health. These funds would be used to cost share
with the landowner the total treatment of the site with the objective of reducing the fuel hazard and improving
forest health. The cost share would be only on the portion that would not generate a profit from a commercial
harvest. Cost share incentives would have a base rate of 80%, with additional incentives up to 95%, for
landowners working together, utilization of material and discouraging burning, use of local contractors, and
creating defensible space around improvements. Letters will be sent to each timber landowner in the grant
area describing the grant and setting up a meeting that will answer additional questions, when a landowner
expresses an interest in participating, a Service Forester will meet with the landowner and decide what needs
to be done. The landowner will sign an agreement that describes the work to be done. When the work is
completed the Service Forester will review and sign off and payment will be made for work completed.
Project Outcome: The outcome of this project will be to reduce the fire hazard and improve forest health on
approximately 5,000 acres and directly and indirectly protect about 100 rural ranches and fulltime residences.
This will also serve as a model for landowners and encourage them to take action to protect their personal
investments.
Project Measures & Reporting: Each landowner will sign an agreement that will outline the work to be
accomplished. This process will record the work items accomplished and amount of acres and the funds
spent.
Partners: Partners will be the local landowners.
Project Time Frames: This work would be accomplished between October 2002 and September 2005
Activities & Equipment Used: Activities would include pre-commercial thinning, pruning, material
utilizations, such as poles & posts, chips, hog fuel, firewood, and slash disposal, which would include
chipping, piling, and burning. Burning is discouraged but in some cases it may be the only method to dispose
of the fuel hazard. Equipment will range from mechanical harvesters, chippers, chainsaws, grapple pilers,
and dozer piling. Again piling and burning is discouraged.
Extent of Actions: The actions would effect approximately 5,000 acres and directly and indirectly protect
about 100 rural ranches and full time residences.
Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: This land has been intensively managed for timber and
grazing resources. Most stands have had the merchantable timber removed and the stands are in need of
thinning and slash cleanup from previous activities. Listed species are Canada Lynx, Bald Eagle, Bull Trout
& Mid Columbia Steelhead. No known Bald Eagles nest in the area, activities will follow the requirements
for fish bearing streams in the Forest Practices Act.
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 directly reduce the fire risk by reducing the amount of fuel in the affected area.
First priority will be to create defensible space, the next will be to work in the area directly beyond defensible
space. This will reduce the basal area to appropriate level for the given site class. By reducing that level and
getting the stand into a healthy state it will be more able to withstand a moderate intensity fire. This project
will directly reduce the risk of high intensity fire and thereby reduce the risk to the affected communities.
The potential for removal of bio-mass will depend on the specific site. Estimates range from 50 to 100 tons
per acre, the material would be used for pulp or fuel for the co-generation plants.
Coordination has taken place with the Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur and Umatilla National Forests, this
project covers the fringe of private timberlands that is adjacent to the National Forests. This is an extension
of existing grants.
This community has been involved in the Firewise and Living with Fire programs. Public meetings,
demonstrations, newspaper articles, fair display have all recently publicized the issues. Currently there are
seven other funded grants of this same type in the John Day Unit and are tied directly to the Communities At
Risk that are recorded in the Federal Register.
It is estimated that in this dry site pine and mixed conifer ecosystem this fuel hazard mitigation will be good
for 10 plus years, during which landowners will be encouraged to use a low intensity fire to maintain the
mitigation work.
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: This
grant will stimuate the landowners to explore alternatives for the treatment of their land. The
local community is very aware of the fire potential and has concerns. This will be the boost to help them
make a positive change in reducing the fire hazard and improving forest health. One of the methods of
treatment will be to grind the fuel on site and supply it to the local co-generation plants in Prairie City and in
Heppner. Utilization will be the preferred and recommended method of treatment for the bio-mass.
This project will help a sagging economy in Grant County. The lumber industry is in its final stages if there
is not an improvement in the supply of timber or other forest related products. The diversification would
come from the ability to utilize smaller material and assistance to make it economical to treat these private
non-industrial lands
This projects could potentially be the seed money to keep 50 to 75 people seasonally employeed for
approximately 3 years.
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: This
grant proposal fits into a strategy in the John Day Unit to apply for grants to cover all the
identified Communities at Risk. Currently seven grants have been funded. This has been coordinated with
the County Courts in Grant, Wheeler, and Harney Counties, county fire chiefs in Grant and Wheeler
Counties, Grant and Wheeler County Soil Water Conservation Districts, Malheur and Umatilla National
Forests, Prineville District BLM, North Fork of the John Day Watershed Council, Grant County Economic
Development. The Umatilla and Malheur National Forests and Prineville BLM are working to connect their
fuel hazard mitigation projects to the work that is being done on private lands.
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: There has
been a series of Firewise workshops in Central Oregon, in which we have had participants
from Grant, Harney, and Wheeler Counties. Locally we have had Living with Fire presentations to the Small
Woodland Owners, and other groups. There was displays at the county fairs, direct mailings to the
landowners in the grant areas, public meetings, newspaper articles, Living with Fire newspaper inserts, and
meetings with service providers for the grants. Local government, economic development, state and federal
agencies have met to coordinate opportunities with the National Fire Plan grants. The counties have grant
money and are working in coordination with this effort as well and the National Forests, BLM, and the
Oregon Department of Forestry.
The benefits of this project are direct fire hazard reduction, improved forest health, local economic
stimulation, bio-mass utilization, and local government coordination. These projects have proved a stimulus
to getting local agencies to working together in an economically depressed area.
Enclosure 3C - Project Work Form
Tasks
Time Frame
Responsible Party
Identify specific landowners and
direct mail the grant information and
set up a meeting for landowners in the
grant area
October 2002
John Day Unit Forester
Sign up landowner in the program,
arrange for a site visit with the
landowner and do a hazard
assessment, determine what activities
need to take place, sign an agreement
for the work and authorize the project.
Monitor work projects, document
activities for future educational
opportunities, check for compliance
with agreement, verify work has been
accomplished, process final payment
record and submit for payment.
Use projects as an example of fire
hazard reduction and improvement of
forest health.
October 2002 and ongoing
Service Forester
October 2002 and ongoing
Service Forester
October 2002 and ongoing
Service Forester and Unit
Forester
Top of Form
Enclosure 3D - Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Personnel
Service Forester 2 months
Office Spec .5 month
Subtotal
Fringe Benefits
OPE 42%
Subtotal
Federal
Agency
Applicant
7400
1100
$8,500
15,000
3570
6300
$3,570
0
Partner 1
Partner 2
Total
$0.00
$0.00
22,400
$1,100.00
$23,500
$0.00
$0.00
$9,870
$0.00
$9870
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$500.00
$0.00
$500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$82,930.00
$0.00
$82,930.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2910
1940
4850
$0.00
$0.00
$123,150
$0.00
$0.00
Travel
Subtotal
$0.00
Equipment
Vehicle
1500
Subtotal
$1,500
Supplies
Service & Supply
500
Subtotal
$500
Contractual
Landowner Cost Share Agrmts
82,930
Subtotal
$82,930
Other
Salem Grant Coordinator
Indirect Field Cost
Subtotal
$
$2910
82,930
$1940
$$4850
$3,
$101,850
000
Total Costs
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Project (Program) Income1
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