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:
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
541-737-4222
541-737-3385
jeff.morrell@orst.edu
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
230 Richardson Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Jeffrey J. Morrell, Professor
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Oregon State University
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
541-737-4222
541-737-4222
jeff.morrell@orst.edu
Project Information
Project Title:
Pole/Post Preservative Treatments for Small-Scale Operations: a demonstration project
Project Start:
Project End:
July 1, 2002
June 30, 2003
Federal Funding Request:
Total Project Funding:
Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize:
No
Brief Project Description:
Treated fence posts are a value-added product that can contribute to the restoration of overstocked small-diameter stands while creating local and regional economic development.
Unfortunately, many of these stands are located considerable distances from commercial pressure
treatment facilities. Double-diffusion treatment is an option for rural areas, but there are
environmental concerns with respect to chemical leaching. Another alternative is to use longer
soak treatments with combinations of water diffusible and low toxicity organic biocides. This
approach is more suitable for non-soil contact, however, the potential for below groundline decay
can be mitigated with low-cost external barriers or sleeves that limit the potential for direct soil
contact. This project would include controlled trials of the dipping process in a lab setting, followed
by a field demonstration for treatment of lesser utilized species such as intermountain Douglas-fir,
grand fir and white fir in Wallowa County using thinning materials from the Wallowa Whitman
National Forest. The treated posts would be installed in demonstration plots in Wallowa County
and Corvallis, Oregon. Economic analysis will compare this approach to conventional pressure
treatment and a limited market acceptance survey will be performed
Project Location:
County:
Congressional District:
Corvallis, OR/Joseph, OR
Benton/Wallowa
5/
If the applicant is an unincorporated area, define the geographic area being represented:
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
 project income
Address these
 project implementation
 project time frames
items as
 anticipated outcomes
 specify types of activities and equipment used
applicable:
 measures and reporting
 amount or extent of actions (acres, number of homes, etc)
 partners
 environmental, cultural and historical resource requirements
Response: Thinning is a critical tool for restoring forest health in many parts of the Intermountain West.
However, thinning produces low value material that has limited markets. One product of small diameter logs
that has potential is fence posts. Fence posts are low cost materials, and can be made from virtually any wood
species. They can be made locally, creating both a value added product and local employment. The limiting
factor to the fence post production is access to pressure treating facilities near areas in need of thinning. Dip
or soaking processes can be substituted, but these processes result in less well-protected materials. Double
diffusion (Cu/F) has been proposed as a method for impregnating posts with minimal equipment investment,
but this process has drawbacks. The process requires two separate chemical treatments and a post treatment
diffusion period. In addition, fluoride is not currently labeled with the US. EPA for this application and the
solutions can be corrosive, complicating treatment. Finally, the metal component is not strongly fixed in the
wood and can migrate from the wood. The furor over chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood stems
from component mobility.
We will demonstrate an alternative post treatment system using less toxic biocides with minimal equipment
investment. The system will use low toxicity organic biocides such as triazole fungicides in combination
with a water diffusible component (boron). Triazoles are well known for the specificity to fungi and have
minimal effects on higher organisms at the levels used. Boron has a long history of use as an insecticide.
These chemicals work well in above ground exposures, but perform poorly in ground contact. To overcome
this problem, the below-ground portion of each post can be wrapped in a plastic barrier. Plastic barriers have
been used for many years in other applications. Screening tests at OSU show that plastic barriers
substantially reduced decay of pine stakes in soil contact. We will identify a UV stable plastic that can be
heat sealed to the bottom of the posts and resists tearing during installation.
Phase I of the project will take place at the OSU Dept of Wood Science and Engineering to assess chemical
uptake and treatment times for various target solutions. Once the preferred solutions have been identified, a
field trial will take place in Wallowa County. Posts, harvested and peeled locally will be treated, with
measurements taken on treatment time, weight gain, and treatment penetration. External plastic wraps will be
applied and provided to local contractors for trial use. Posts will also be installed in the OSU Post Farm in
Corvallis where performance can be monitored under more aggressive decay conditions.
Treatment economics will be assessed using cost data for the chemical used, the plastic barriers, and
personnel time required for treatment. This information will be compared with treatment costs at the closest
commercial facility, including transportation costs. The analysis will determine cost:benefit ratios for local
treatment using this new method versus outsourcing Costs associated with post preparation and procurement
will be ignored since they should not differ between the two processes. In addition, we will perform a limited
market acceptance survey to assess the attitudes of potential users of these products
The project goal is to establish a program that could be applied to other small timber dependent communities
to utilize small diameter timber in a value added product that creates local employment. The results will be
summarized in a user guide for developing treatment operations.
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)?
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?
Response: A.
The project has the potential for improving the local economy byproviding local employment for
harvesting and preparation of post material for treatment. The project also offers the potential for retaining
more money in the local economy since posts will not need to be purchased from other areas, and has
thepotential for bringing in in additional money as markets for treated posts develop outside the local area.
B. Small diameter materials will be the primary focus of the project- this should reduce fuel levesl while
providng more of an economic stimulus for thinnning.
C. Wallowa Resources will be the primary local participant in the demonstration, although we will invite
other local business to participate in the project
D. We intend to document the costsa nd benefits of this project and then prepare a guide for other
communities seeking similar projects.
2. Reducing fire risk. (30 points)
Describe how the proposal promotes reduction of risk in high hazard areas and communities.
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 fuels treatment plan or community fire strategy (include
evidence of the plan if it already exists)?
D. Explain how the proposal (a) leads to, enhances or restores a local fire-adapted ecosystem, and/or (b) mitigates or leads to the
mitigation of hazardous fuels conditions.
A.
B.
Response: A.
Creating markets for small diameter timber indirectly stimulates interest in thinning projects that
can be used to reduce fule loads At present, the outlet for most small diameter thinning material is the chip
market, which has depressed prices that provide little incentive for action. In addition, many forests are too
far froml potential chip markets, making the process even less attractive.
B. Th is project can benefit both federal and private land by proividng an incentive to remove over-stocked
small diameter timber. This will reduce fuel loads, reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires.
C. The project provides an incentive for fuels reduction through thinning.
D. Proviing economic incentives for removing small diameter timber should encourage managers to
undertake restoration projects in areas where larger diameter timber may be lacking. This shouldhelp enhance
the prospects for restoration fo a fire adapted ecosystem.
Enclosure 4B (Page 3 of 3) - Project Evaluation Criteria
3. Increasing interagency and intergovernmental coordination. (15 Points)
A. To what extent have interested people and communities been provided an opportunity to become informed and involved in
this proposal?
B. Describe the extent of local support for the project, including any cost-sharing arrangements
C. What are the environmental, social and educational benefits of the project?
Response: A&B.
This proejct will provide a demonstration for local timber users through Wallowa Resources,
a local group seeking to help develop new markets for materials from Northeastern Oregon forests. The
model, however, will apply to nearly all communities in the Western U.S.
C. The environment will hopefully benfit because thinning materials removed may stimulate recovery of the
native fire-adapted forest. This project also offers the ptoential for developing stable local employment
4. Increasing interagency and intergovernmental coordination. (20 Points)
A. Explain the level of cooperation, coordination or strategic planning among federal, state, tribal, local government and
community organizations in developing this proposal. List the cooperators.
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: This
project represents a collaborative effort between a local organization (Wallowa Resources) and
a State agency (OSU) to take research results developed at the University and apply these results to a real
world problem. This approach offers the potetnial to leap ahead of existing practice to produce a technology
for post treatment that is safe, practical, and cost-effective in a manner that allows the technology to be
applied locally
Enclosure 4C - Project Work Form
Tasks
Time Frame
Responsible Party
Identify suitable treatment regimes
Months 1-3
OSU
Field Demonstration of treatmentprocess
Month 5 to 6
Wallowa Resources with OSU support
Assess economics of treatment
Month 7
OSU with Wallowa support
Prepare treatment guide for other operations
Months 8-12
OSU with Wallowa support
Enclosure 4D - Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Applicant
Partner 1
Personnel
$6,263.00
$2,310.00
$3,000.00
Subtotal
$6,263.00
$2,310.00
$3,000.00
Fringe Benefits
$2,460.00
$831.00
Subtotal
$2,460.00
$831.00
Travel
$1,200.00
Subtotal
$1,200.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Partner 2
Total
$0.00
$11,573.00
$0.00
$0.00
$11,573.00
$0.00
$3,291.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,291.00
$0.00
$1,200.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,200.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$600.00
$0.00
$0.00
$600.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Equipment
Subtotal
$0.00
Supplies
$600.00
Subtotal
$600.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Contractual
Subtotal
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Other
Indirect Costs (41.5%)
$4,367.00
$1,304.00
Subtotal
$4,367.00
$1,304.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,671.00
$0.00
$5,671.00
Total Costs
$14,890.00
$4,445.00
$3,000.00
$0.00
$22,335.00
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