Sterling Landowners
Consortium
FUELS REDUCTION CO-MANAGEMENT
PROPOSAL 2002
REACH INC. ECOSYSTEM WORKFORCE TRAINING PROJECT - WORKFORCE 2002
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:
REACH, Inc.
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
(541) 882-8803
(541) 883-5265
toreachbjorn@aol.com
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
P. O. Box 1089
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Bjorn Everson, Director of Workforce Training, Ecosystem Workforce Training Project
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Sterling Landowners Consortium
Norm & Linda Jackson, Chairs
Phone:
FAX:
Email:
(541) 899-7750
cell (541) 840-0839
pager 770-8618
Project Information
Project Title:
Sterling Landowners Consortium Fuels Reduction Co-management Proposal 2002
Project Start:
Project End:
August-September 2002
November 2002
Federal Funding Request:
Total Project Funding:
$42559.63
$47180.63
Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize: N. A.
Brief Project Description:
The Sterling Landowners Consortium (SLC) has practiced management prescriptions across ownership boundaries
since 1998. Seven original private landowners and partner Ashland Resource Area BLM have sought increased
membership for 2002; we have successfully doubled landowner numbers and quadrupled the extent of private acreage.
Treatments public and private have reflected the dual goals of fire hazard reduction and wildlife habitat enhancement
through landowner education and co-operative work experience. Proposed tasks for this project are:
A) Individual
landowner prescriptions facilitated by Ecosystem Workforce Training (EWT) crew. Includes flagging, GPS, mapping.
B) Contract with 'Slashbuster" in conjunction with BLM treatments. C) EWT crew performs 'interface' thinning around
homes, outbuilding, and plantings. D) Integration of SLC with Applegate Fire Plan. E) Outreach and modeling to two
adjacent neighborhood groups to maximize treatment benefits - Gilson Gulch Group and Buncom Bunch.
Project Location:
County:
Congressional District:
T39S R2W Sec 8 Sterling Ck.
Jackson
Second District
Project Type: Check appropriate project type. More than one type may be checked. If only Box (4) is checked, use Enclosure 4.
(1) x Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Project
(2) x 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
 partners





project income
project time frames
specify types of activities and equipment used
amount or extent of actions (acres, number of homes, etc)
environmental, cultural and historical resource requirements
Response: The Ecosystem Workforce Training crew of REACH, Inc. WEST (EWT) will facilitate this project with the 15 Sterling
Landowners Consortium (SLC) members. All properties are in T39S R2W S8 along Sterling Creek Road in Jackson County. The
designated ‘High Hazard’ Applegate lands together form an unbroken connection 2 miles long, 11 of the private landowners are
contiguous with BLM lands along the 'Buncom Bowl' of approximately 300 acres, and additional BLM lands on the north side of
Sterling Creek, about 150 acres. The total potential protected acres from this proposal is 450 acres BLM, 263 acres private, 15
member homes, and an additional 6+ non-member homes.
Partners: Sterling Landowners Consortuim, REACH WEST EWT crew, Ashland Resource Area Bureau of Land Management,
Applegate Fire Plan (AFP), Oregon Department of Forestry, the Gilson Gulch Group, Fire District #9, The Lomakatsi Project,
Applegate River Watershed Council, and the U.S. Forest Service.
Approximately 59 acres are proposed for treatment on private lands; 45 acres are proposed to be treated with the 'Slashbuster'
contractor in conjunction with Buncom Bowl Thinning on public land. The remaining 14 acres are proposed for hand treatment in
areas very close to residences and outbuilding, and will be done by the EWT crew as part of their technical training program. This
program trains local restoration workers in the field as they complete certification requirements through REACH and the
Community College. Implementing a prescription that they have helped to design teaches about landowner interface, giving good
reality 'grounding'.
Both SLC and EWT have some experience and success at outreach. The crew will work with each SLC partner to design or
enhance a Private Property Prescription including: fuel reduction, wildlife habitat enhancement, a fire protection Plan and Phone
Tree through AFP, and monitoring responsibilities. These written prescriptions will become part of the Final Report to grantors and
partners. The SLC and EWT will share their successes with the Gilson Gulch Group, who hold the private lands just on the other
side of the BLM Buncom Bowl, and with the newly forming ‘Buncom Bunch’ contiguous with these lands. A minimum of one
evening meeting and one field tour will be accompanied with all forms, documents, AFP materials, and facilitation, including EWT
crew members, to enable duplication of the SLC success "over the hill".
The SLC currently performs some monitoring responsibilities in conjunction with Oak-Pine Savannah transects on both public
and private land. SLC representatives have already met with BLM prescription designers for input into habitat set-asides,
prescription design and boundaries. EWT crews will GPS and map all private mosaics, and feedback forms made available to all
partners by the Applegate Fire Plan and EWT.
Hand work will be by chainsaws to achieve volume production, reduce time. Working in decadent 10' high ceanothus still takes
time, and cut brush will be swamp-burned, chipped, or ground by the Slashbuster. This contractor, under contract to BLM, will 'hop
the fence' and perform treatments on 45 private acres. Contract prices and times may vary due to fire windows of opportunity.
Flagging and GPS will verify acreage treated to tenths of an acre. The Lomakatsi Project will share cross-training for these steps,
aided by USFS, Community College, REACH, and BLM instructors. Private Landowners are encouraged to participate at all levels.
This project will create no income; T & E and neo-tropical species assessments have already been performed on most private
lands; NEPA completed on BLM; project work may begin as soon as funding is available: 1) Prescriptions - August- September
2002 2) Hand treatments - October - 2002
3) Slashbuster - October 2002 4) Outreach - Sept-Oct 2002 5) Final
Reports - Fall 2002
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.
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 fuels treatment plan or 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 (a) leads to, enhances or restores a local fire-adapted ecosystem, and/or (b) mitigates or leads to the
mitigation of hazardous fuel conditions.
F. How will the proposed treatments be maintained over time?
Response: A) Proposal completes fuel reduction designs initiated by public & private partners in 1998. Adds to large areas already
treated, completes fuel breaks, extends landowner interest and ability to do treatments.
B) Co-management enhances treatments on both sides of the fence. A large fuel break between public & private pleases all
partners; reduction of brushlands protects all resources; greatly augments quantifiers.
( see appendix for sample Initial Treatments for Sterling Landowners Consortium)
C) Augments SLC cooperative fuels treatment plans in existance; doubles number of landowners, quadruples acreage under
protection, brings into active Applegate Fire Plan participation 2 miles of landowners.
D) Sterling Landowners Consortium members: have met with BLM to design prescriptions; have met with AFP for Phone Tree,
mapping and conditions, small grant participation; meet with ODF for individual treatment prescriptions; 2 landowners have
become SIP participants; influence on other local groups
E) SLC has 'bought into' the ecological design of the BLM Buncom Bowl as an over-run Oak-Pine Savannah. The individual
presctiptions have been designed to enhance the larger BLM prescriptions, have performed private lands treatments across
boundaries to restore plant and animal species.
F) Ceanothus will be maintained by: wildlife browse, goat browse, over-shading with conifer interplant, work parties, and potential
fire ecology. Monitoring plots remain 'static', to be measured by landowners.
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)?
B. To what extent will this project be offered to serve as a model for other communities?
C. Will biomass or forest fuels be utilized; if so, in what manner and how much?
Response: A) The Ecosystem Workforce Training project teaches a broad skill base to local restoration workers. This increases
their capacity for year 'round work; contractors 'hired away' so many trainees that EWT was in a hiring mode throughout 2001.
Increased contractor capacity in fencing, tree planting, fire crew, and range restoration have all been augmented by the EWT. This
reflects the quality of training and trainee. Restoration is by nature seasonal, but a wide skill base increases duration of employment
in the woods. Four new trainees positions will be initiated by this project, to be retained for approximately 10 months.
B) REACH EWT is held up throughout the State as a model of successful workforce training. EWT will partner with Lomakatsi
Project for cross-training in mapping, GPS, and prescription design. Current develop-ment of workforce training programs with
REACH input include: Karuk Tribe (Happy Camp, California), REACH WEST, and University of Oregon Ecosystem Workforce
Forum. An MOU with the Klamath Tribes has been initiated. REACH EWT is the newest site for SOU Native American Studies
Program internships. The U. of O. Workforce Forum’s annual meeting is hosted this year by REACH, with site demonstrations.
C) There is no possibility of biomass utilization; virtually all fuels reduction is ceanothus cunneatus, buckbrush.
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 plan, or creates such a plan. Describe the plan if it
already exists.
B. Explain the level of cooperation, coordination or strategic planning among federal, state, tribal, local government and
community organizations. List the cooperators.
Response: A) The Applegate Fire Plan is part of the Sterling Landowners Consortuim proposal for 2002. This plan outlines 1)
mapping current condition, 2) reducing identified fire hazards, especially where existing co-management plans are in place, 3)
building community infrastructure for prevention & preparedness, and emergency Commuity commuication, and 4) development of
a Fire Supression strategy including Risk Assessment. Several Applegate community groups including Sterling Landowners and
Humbug Creek are the initial demonstration of applying this Plan.
B) An unusual amount of intergovernmental cooperation is represented in the Applegate Fire Plan and the SLC Proposal. Partners
for both mutual efforts include: AFP, SLC, REACH EWT, Lomakatsi Project, Medford BLM, US Forest Service, Fire District #9,
the Applegate Partnership & Watershed Council, and Oregon Department of Forestry. The co-management agreement between
SLC and the BLM has been in operation since 1998.
An example of the SLC ability to facilitate bringing to the table diverse publics is The Buncom White Paper, representing
landowners from Gilson Gulch and SLC joining together to facilitate BLM communication regarding the Buncom Timber Sale in
1998. This sale went unchallanged in court. The pamphlet was co-authored by BLM and is currently used as an example of how to
communicate with public agencies.
4. Expanding Community Participation. (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) The Sterling Landowners Consortium held the first landowner meeting of the Applegate Fire Plan, which also
included ODF, BLM, and REACH, at which 9 landowners shared accomplishments and concerns, and were updated by AFP and
ODF. SLC representatives later met with BLM prescription designers for input into the Buncom Bowl 2002 project. Gilson Gulch
people expressed an interest in the SLC process, and needing some more time, asked for assistance, and will be facilitated in
connection with this proposal.
B) Local support has been addressed above, as all partners are local. In addition, two landowners are implementing SIP practices,
one for brush field clearing and one for developing a SIP plan in connection with SLC fire hazard reduction treatments. Total value
to the land through SIP input is approximately $4000.
C) Primary environmental benefits are the return of hundreds of acres to a fire-regime Oak-Pine savannah, and the corrolary
reduction of fire hazard for a large number of landowners across a two mile landscape. Social benefits include landowner education,
(which SLC feels is its most significant product), inclusion of two new landowner blocks in the Applegate Fire Plan, and providing
some light at the end of the career tunnel for restoration workers being trained to augment the local professional workforce.
Enclosure 3C - Project Work Form
Tasks
Sterling Landowner Consortium initial
scoping; prescription design; GPS & mapping
Flagging all sites.
Time Frame
August-September 2002
Responsible Party
Ecosystem Workforce Training
Project - EWT, REACH, Inc. &
Lomakatsi Project
September 2002
EWT crew
Project Implementation
Hand Treatments, Property Margins
14 acres
October 2002
EWT Crew
Project Implementation
Slashbuster, 45 acres
October 2002
John Brown & Son
Outreach to Gilson Gulch, Buncom Bunch
Evening Meeting, Preparation
September-October 2002
Sterling Landowners Consortium,
Applegate Fire Plan, and REACH,
Inc. EWT
Tour of Treatments
SLC Properties
BLM Buncom Bowl
September-October 2002
Sterling Landowners & REACH
SLC & BLM
Final Reports fo Grantors & Partners
October-November 2002
REACH, Inc., Sterling Landowners,
and Applegate Fire Plan
Enclosure 3D Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Applicant
Partner 1
Partner 2
Total
14400.16
496.80
14896.96
3600.04
124.20
3724.24
Personnel
Subtotal
Fringe Benefits
Subtotal
Travel
Per diem
3100.00
3100.00
Gas, oil, printing,
pamphlets, reports
Subtotal
Contractual
1992.43
1992.43
Slashbuster
SIP Treatments
Subtotal
Other
19467.00
Subtotal
Equipment
Subtotal
Supplies
Subtotal
Total Costs
Project (Program) Income1
(using deductive alternative)
1
4000.00
19467.00
4000.00
$47180.63
$42559.63
$621.00
$4000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
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.