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:
Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District
Phone:
FAX:
FE-m a i 1:
541-957-5061
541-440-0872
walter-gayner@or.nacdnet.oro
Address (Street or P. 0. Box, Cky, State, Zip):
1443 NE Vine St. Roseburg, OR 97470
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Walter Gayner, District Manager
OrganizabonIJudsdiction:
Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District
Phone:
FAX:
541-957-5061.
541-440-0872
TE-mail:
1 walter-gayner@or.nacdnet.org
Project Information
Project Title:
Douglas County Wildfire Suppression Water Sources and Habitat Project
Project Start:
Project End:
July 1, 2002
June 30, 2004
Federal Funding Request:
Total Project Funding:
$143,062.00
$279,777.00
Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize:
No.
Brief Project Description:
This proposal will provide helicopters, engines, and tenders with water facilities at locations in
Douglas County that are currently lacking adequate facilities. Three ponds large enough to
accommodate the largest helicopter and bucket will be constructed. 1,000,000 gallons will be
available at any time up through the end of the fire season. Ten different springs will be developed
and fed into individual 10,000+ gallon tanks.
In addition, funding from other sources will be used to make the ponds more environmentally
friendly. Shallow water areas will be excavated around the "body" of the pond so wetland habitat is
created. Livestock will be excluded from the area by fencing (if they are present). Fencing will be
set back away from the possible drag area of the bucket.
The pond areas will have deed restrictions prohibiting the landowner from running power lines
overhead and requiring the landowner to prevent tall vegetation (trees) from establishing.
Project Location:
County:
I
Multiple
Congressional District:
14
Douglas
Project Type: Check appropriate project type. More than one type may be checked. If only Box (4) is checked, use Enclosure 4.
(1) El Wildiand Urban Interface Fuels Project (3) [R Community Planning for Fire Protection Project
(2) 0 Wildland Urban Interface Education and Prevention Project (4) 0 Fuels Utilization and Marketing Project
If the applicant is an unincorporated area, define the geographic area being represented:
Enclosure 3B (Page I of 3) - Project Narrative Description
Applications for ftmding must include a narrative response that describes the proposal. Please do not submit responses longer Om one page,
single space, 12-pitch font
Describe project includinjt, but not limited to:
Address these
0
project location
0
project income
items as
0
project implementation
0
project time frames
applicable:
0
anticipated outcomes
0
specify types of activities and equipment used
9
measures and reporting
0
amount or extent of actions (acres, number of homes, etc)
9
partners
0
environmental, culftu-al and historical resource requirements
Response:
Project Location- Installations will be located throughout the county. All water facilities will be placed in areas
currently lacking such facilities. Map show current locations for heli-ponds. A "1", "2", and "3 are on the map
indicating the areas of interest.
11
Project Income- See attached budget for details.
Project Implementation- Douglas SWCD, with support from DFPA and BLK will manage the project. Projects will
be implemented utilizing some existing inkind equipment and labor (DFPA, landowners, Douglas SWCD) while
some tasks will be completed with fund-paid labor/equipment/supplies (BLK Fire Plan, OWEB).
Project Time Frames- Project will be started as soon as funding is secured and completed within two years.
Estimated timeline for the project is 7/l/02-6/30/04. If the NEPA process is shorter than expected, the timeline for
completion will be shorter.
Anticipated Outcomes- (1) Ten spring-fed, 10,000+ gallon tanks with necessary plumbing and (2) three, 1,000,000
gallon ponds capable of handling the largest helicopter bucket. Dry hydrants will be installed on the ponds.
Types of Activities and Equipment Used- There will be earthwork for the pond construction as well as
trencher/backhoe time for pipelaying. Dozers, excavators, trucks, scrapers, and survey equipment will be used.
Hand equipment will be used for fence construction and wetland planting.
Measures and Reporting- The measure of success will be based on (1) how many tanks are placed and (2) how many
ponds are constructed. A final report at the end of the construction phase will be completed with color photos
showing the sites before, during, and after construction.
Extent of Activities- A total of 13 water facilities will be completed.
Partners- National Fire Plan (or its designated overseeing agency), Douglas Forest Protective Association, Bureau
of Land Management, Douglas SWCD, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
private landowners (where applicable).
Environmental, Cultural, and Historical Resource Requirements- Permits from Oregon Water Resources Department
are known to be needed for each of the ponds/wetlands. For NEPA-related issues, the Bureau of Land Management
and US Fish and Wildlife Service have offered assistance in meeting those compliance requirements. Federal agencies
will also provide guidance with cultural/historic resource issues.
Enclosure 3B (Page 2 of 3) - Project Evaluation Criteeia
Applications for funding must include narrative W-sponses that address the following four ctitcria. Within each criterion, sub
criteria are listed in descending order of importance. Umit 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-fedemi 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
quahfied 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?
Rest)onse:
A. With additional water facilities in close proximity to high risk areas, the time to move water from supply to fire
will be greatly reduced. This will significantly reduce the risk of small fires becoming large fires. Having readily
accessible water supplies distributed throughout the area provides a network that will minimize travel time and get
the maximum water to the fire site.
B. These sites may be located on both federal and non-federal land and the water will be used wherever it is needed.
The proposed sites are close to urban interfaces.
C. These additional sites are part of Douglas Forest Protective Association's network of water supply points and will
help fill in "gaps" in their inventory. (See map)
D. At this point, this activity has not been incorporated in a qualified education program. It may be in the future,
but that is not certain.
E. Having reliable water sources in or near the urban interfaces helps mitigate the risk of large fires that can
potentially overrun communities. High capacity ponds are capable of being used extensively on larger fires or
multiple fires.
F. Agreements between the District and landowners with specifically reference the need for maintaining access to
the sites, preventing tall vegetation from establishing around heliponds, and restricting power line t)lacement around
helit)onds.
2. Increasing local capacity, (30 points)
A.
B.
C.
How would the proposal improve or lead to the improvement of the local economy in terms ofjobs 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)?
To what extent will this project be offered to serve as a model for other communities?
Will biomass or forest fuels be utilized; if so, in what manner and how much?
Resvonse:
A. This work will be done by local workers/contractors. Because of the many components of this project, full
implementation of the on-the-ground work will take a year. The pond construction work will be during the summer and
will employ several equipment operators for several months. The fence construction and pipelaying work will take
place in the fall and will take several months. The wetland planting will occur in the winter. The planning, design,
engineering, surveying, construction supervision, project management, and fiscal management will all be done by
private sector or "soft" money public positions. Overall, diverse projects like this employ a large number of people with
diverse skills and areas of expertise.
B. There is a need for more of these tanks and ponds in this area. However, this is the first step. Future work will be
pursued after this work has been done successfully. Other areas of the state will be able to follow this example (if they
chose) and approach the same or similar funding sources.
C. There is no identified fuel utilization in this project currently. However, once the specific locations are known, it
can then be determined whether fuels will be generated during the clearing and construction stages of the project.
Enclosure 3B (Page 3 of 3) - Project Evaluation Criteria
3. Increasing interagency and intergovernmental coordination. (15 Points)
A.
exists.
B.
Describe how this project implements a local intergovenunental strategy plan, or creates such a plarl Describe the plan if it already
ExpLtin the level of cooperation, coordination or strategic planning among federal state, tribal, local govenunent and
A.
To what extent have interested people and communities been provided an opportunity to become informed and involved in this
proposal?
community organizations. List the cooperators.
Resvonse:
A. Douglas Forest Protective Association is the first responder for public and private rural land fires in
Douglas County. These water facilities are part of their network and part of their long-term plan. .
D. There are a number of cooperators on this project. Listed below are the participants and what they will
do.
* Douglas Forest Protective Association--Planning suppor~ GIS operator labor, bulldozer/backhoe and
operator for earthwork/construction, truck and trailer for moving tanks, landowner recruitment.
* Bureau of Land Management--Funding for planning, design, engineering, surveying, wetland vegetation
and planting labor, project management, etc. Inkind labor for NEPA work (combined with USFWS).
* Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board--Funding for permit applications, fencing materials, fencing labor,
livestock water supplies, construction supervision, project management, fiscal management, and mileage.
* Private Landowners/Douglas SWCD--Landowner recruitment, site maintenance, and contract development.
*BLN4/USFWS--provide support to Douglas SWCD on issues associated with the NEPA process, ESA,
and cultural/historic resource issues.
4. Expanding Community Participation. (15 Points)
B.
C.
Describe the extent of local support for the project, including any cost-sharing arrangements.
What are the environmental, social and educational benefits of the project?
Response:
A. So far, Douglas SWCD and DFPA have received calls from three individuals interested in participating in
this project. However, we have not officially started promoting this project. When we do start informing the
public, we will do so through the Douglas SWCD quarterly newsletter (circulation of 2500), word-of-mouth,
public meetings, and other agency announcements.
B. Funding for this project is coming from several sources and there are 5 main partners. They are DFPA,
BLK OWEB, Douglas SWCD/private landowners, and the National Fire Plan. See attached budget for
details.
C. The wetland creation component to the ponds will be a significant environmental benefit. The deep water
portion of the pond will be for the bucket to sink. The shallow water area surrounding the deep water will be
excellent wetland habitat. Volunteer groups like the Isaac Walton League work on conservation projects of
this type and appreciate the opportunity to support such activities. The North Bank Habitat Management Area
is a public recreation area and a proposed location for a pond. It is an excellent location for public exposure to
demonstrate the value of all the aspects of this type of work.
Enclosure 3C - Project Work Form
Tasks
Project Management
ParUcipant Recwtment
Applications to Match Fund Sources
Scheduling
General Oversight
Reporting, etc.
Design/Engineering
Site Evaluation
Surveying
Layout
Engineering Sign-off
Construction Supervision
Pond, Spillway Construction
Fence Construction
Planting
Spring Development
Tank Placement
Construction
Pond, Spillway
Spring Development
Fence
Valving, Pipelines
Tank Transportation
Tank Placement
Quality Control-Final hispection
Pond, Spillway Construction
Spring Development
Fencing
Planting
Pipelaying
Fiscal Nlanagement/Administration
Contracting
Payroll
Permitting
Reporting
Culhual Resource Evaluation
NEPA Compliance
Aninmls
Plants
Fish
Time Fram.e.
For entire project
Responsible Party
Douglas Soil and Water
Conservation District (Douglas
SWCD)
Year One (7/l/02-6/30/03)
Douglas SWCD
Year Two (7/l/03-6/30/04)
Douglas SWCD
Year Two
Douglas SWCD
Douglas Forest Protective Assn
(DFPA)
Private Contractors
Year Two
Douglas SWCD
DFPA
For entire project.
Douglas SWCD
Year One
Douglas SWCD working with
Bureau of Land NLinagement
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Budget for Wildfire Water Impoundments in Douglas County
(3 ponds and 10 tanks)
Pond Locations-(I) Base of Tyea Mtn., (2) Dodson Buftn4awk Mtn. Ln/NBHMA, (3) West of Glendale/Azalea
Tank Locations-Scattered throughout the District as needed.
Ponds vath Helicopter Access (3 Ponds, Min. 1,000,000 Gallons Each)
Project and Maintenance Plan Development
Permit Development and Applications
Landowner Recruibnent
NEPA Planning and Evaluation
Topographic Evaluation (project site feasibility resulting in 13 approved sites
Survey Equipment and Software
Project Site Survey (3 sites, 5 days per site, 2 person crew)
Site DesigrVEngineering for Hydrologic Improvements (3 sites)
Prah"onal Engineering Evalubon and Approval
Construction Layout/Staking
Water Control Structure Construction (15 days per site @ $200thr for eqpmt. and op.)
Pond Uner (200'x 2W) or BentDnits (prefer tD find sites not needing a liner)
Spillway Improvement EarttworktHandwork
Spillway Matedals
Construction SuperVr-,ion
Livestock Exclusion Fencing Materials (1,SW feet per site)
Livestock Exclusion Fencing Labor (1,600 fee per site)
Livestock Water System Labor
Livestock Water System Equipment
Livestock Water System Materials
Fencing and Water Sysfz6m Design, In-field Layout, and Construction Supervision
Vegetation Management Plan Development (Mutfi-year Plan)
Wedand Vegetation Materials (Low-growing)
Planting Labor
Planting Supervision
Dry Hydrant Plumbing Materials
Hydrant Installation Labor
Hydrant Installation Equipment
Spring Development w/10,000+ Gallon Tanks (10 Sites)
10,000/12,000 Gallon Tank (3 donated, 7 purchased)
Tank Transportation for 10 Tanks
Site Preparation (8 hrs per site for 10 sites)
Spring Development Matedals
Spring Development and Plumbing Labor (10 hrs per site for 10 sites)
Spdng Development Equipment (8 hrs per site for 10 sites)
Pipeline SuppliesIFftfings
Spring Development Design, In-field Layout, and Construction Supervision
(Pending) (Secured) (Secu
Unit
hr.
hr.
hr.
hr.
hr.
day
hr.
hr.
ea.
hr.
ea.
ea.
Ga.
ea.
hr.
ft.
ft.
hr.
total
Ga.
hr.
hr.
acre
hr.
hr.
ea.
hr.
ea.
ea.
mile
hr.
ea.
hr.
hr.
ea.
hr.
# of Units Unit Cost
120
40.00
12
40.00
100
40.00
80
40.00
64
40.00
30
110.00
240
45.00
40
40.00
3
1,000.00
72
40.00
3
24,000.00
1
16,000.00
3
5,000.00
3
2,500.00
168
40.00
4,800
1.25
4,800
1.25
48
25.00
3
500.00
3
1,000.00
72
40.00
32
40.00
9
750.00
72
35.00
32
40.00
3
1,000.00
24
40.00
3
1,000.00
7
1,000
so
10
100
80
10
160
1,000.00
1.50
45.00
1,000.00
25.00
40.00
500.00
40.00
Total
4,800
480
4,000
3,200
2,560
3,300
10,800
1,600
3,000
2,880
72,000
16,000
15,000
7,500
6,720
6,000
6,000
1,200
1,500
3,000
2,880
1,280
6,750
2,520
1,280
3,000
960
3,000
Fire Fund
0
0
0
0
2560
3300
0
0
0
0
36000
16000
7500
7500
6720
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,000
960
3,000
DFPA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36000
0
7500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,000
1,500
3,600
10,000
2,500
3,200
5,000
6,400
7,000
0
3,600
10,000
2,500
1,600
5,000
6,400
0
1,500
0
0
0
1,600
0
0
2000
6
2
ManagemenUMonitoring/Maintenance
Monitoiring/Maintwmnce Mikop (8 years)
Vegetation Management/Maintenance Labor for Ponds
Project Management/Coordination
Project Mileage (All phases except monitoring)
Landowner Meetings, and Contract Terms Development
Admin./Fiscal Mgt., Contract Writing, etc.
mile
hr.
hr.
mile
hr.
total
1,600
480
348
2,500
80
1
Includes Douglas SWCD, private landowners, USFWS, and BLM.
(BLM and USFWS will assist with the NEPA consultatm work)
Summary of Costs to National Fire Plan
Labor
SuppikWMataiials
Equipment
Contracted Services
AdminisbaWn
Travel/Mileage
Total-
22,640
48,500
7,900
50,560
13,006
456
143,0621
0.37
20.00
40.00
0.37
40.00
19.150.60
Total-
584
9,600
13,920
913
3,200
19,151
279,777
0
0
6,960
456
0
13,006
143,062
51%
0
0
0
0
0
0
48,600
17%
584
0
3,480
228
0
2,498
30,000
11%
0
0
3,480
228
0
3,647
40,115
14%
0
9,600
0
0
3,200
0
18,000
6%
Helicopter Ponds
with 2.5mi Buffers
February 25, 2002
R8W
T20S
T21S
T23S
T26S
T27S
T28S
T29S
T31S
T32S
T33S
R7W
RSW
R5W
R4W
R3W
Holiporid Buffer 15mile
Holiponds DC: Road*
DFPA TDWFPA Hilgh Risk
A"as N_RNG Seelons
Oregon State Interface Communities
Curry Nesika Beach
Curry Port Orford
Deschutes
Bend
Deschutes
Black Butte
Deschutes
Brothers
Deschutes
Elk Lake
Deschutes
Hampton
Deschutes
La Pine
Deschutes
Redmond
Deschutes
Sisters-Cloverdale
Deschutes
Sundver
Deschutes
Terrebonne
Deschutes
Tumalo
Douglas Ash Valley
Douglas Azalea
Douglas Camas Valley
Douglas Canyonville
Douglas Curtin
Douglas Days Creek
Douglas Diamond Lake Composite
Douglas Dillard
Douglas Dixonville
Douglas Drain
Douglas Dry Creek
Douglas Elkton
Douglas Fair Oaks
Douglas Gardiner
Douglas Glenbrook
Douglas Glendale
Douglas Glide
Douglas Green Acres
Douglas Idleyld Park
Douglas Lemolo Lake Composite
Douglas Lookingglass
Douglas Myrtle Creek
Douglas Oakland
Douglas Reedspoft
Douglas Rice Hill
Douglas Riddle
Douglas Roseburg
Douglas Scoftsburg
Douglas Steamboat
Douglas Sutherlin
Douglas Tenmile
Douglas Tiller
Douglas Toketee
Douglas Td City
Douglas Umpqua
Douglas Union Gap
Douglas Wilbur
Douglas Winchester
Douglas Winchester Bay
Page 3 of 10
Oregon State Interface Communities
Douglas Winston
Douglas Wolf Creek JCC
Douglas Yoncalla
Gilliam Arlington
Gilliam Condon
Gilliam Mayville
Grant Austin
Grant Bates
Grant Canyon City
Grant Dayville
Grant Granite
Grant John Day
Grant Long Creek
Grant Monument
Grant Mount Vernon
Grant Prairie City
Grant Seneca
Hamey Andrews
Hamey Blitzen
Hamey Burns - Hines
Hamey Crane
Hamey Diamond
Hamey Drewsey
Hamey Fields
Hamey Frenchglen
Hamey Narrows
Hamey 00 (Double 0)
Hood River
Cascade Locks
Hood River
Dee
Hood River
Hood River
Hood River
Mount Hood
Hood River
Oak Grove
Hood River
Odell
Hood River
Parkdale
Hood River
Pine Grove
Hood River
Rockford
Hood River
Summit
Hood River
Trout Creek
Hood River
Viento
Hood River
Westside
Hood River
Wyeth
Jackson Antelop Creek
Jackson Applegate
Jackson Ashland
Jackson Butte Falls
Jackson Colestin
Jackson Crowfoot
Jackson Elk Creek
Jackson Gold Hill
Jackson Green Springs
Jackson Jacksonville
Jackson Lake Creek
Page 4 of 10