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:
541-935-2283
FAX:
Email:
541-935-2283
dspiesscha@odf.state.or.us
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
2600 State Street, Salem, OR 97310
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Gordon Foster, Unit Forester
Organization/Jurisdiction:
John Day Unit, Central Oregon District, Oregon Department of Forestry
Phone:
541-575-1139
FAX:
Email:
541-575-2253
gfoster@odf.state.or.us
Project Information
Project Title:
Seneca, Bear Valley Defensible Space & Hazard Fuel Reduction
Project Start:
Project End:
October 2002
September 2005
Federal Funding Request:
Total Project Funding:
$101,700
$121,700
Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize:
Yes, priority #5
Brief Project Description:
Provide assistance to non-industrial landowners in the Seneca, Bear Valley area 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:
County:
Congressional District:
Seneca, Bear Valley
Grant
2nd Walden
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)
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:
Project Location: The area is located in and around the community of Seneca in Bear Valley on the
timbered fringe of the valley adjoining the Malheur National Forest.
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 4,000 acres and directly and indirectly protect about 50 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. ODF Salem will issue a control number obligating the estimated amount of grant funds, when
the work is completed the Service Forester will review and sign off on the amount of work completed. ODF
Salem will process payment to the landowner. 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
utilization, 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 4,000 acres and directly and indirectly protect
about 50 rural ranches and full time residences, and the city of Seneca with a population of about 300 people.
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. Bear Valley is the headwaters of the Silvies River, 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.
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?
This project will reduce the fire risk directly 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 in 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 Malheur National Forest, this project covers the fringe of private
timberlands that is between the valley and the National Forest. Similar grants are funded directly to the north
of this grant proposal.
This community has been involved in the Firewise and Living with Fire programs. Public meetings,
demonstrations, newspaper articles, fair displays have all recently publicized the issues. Currently there are
seven other funded grants of this same type in the John Day Unit that 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 maintain the mitigation work.
Response:
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.
biomass
or forest
utilized;
if so, in
manner and
how much?
TheWill
project
would
fall fuels
underbethe
guidance
ofwhat
the Oregon
Forest
Practices Act.
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 have a concern. 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 plant in Prairie City which is
30 miles to the northeast. Utilization will be the preferred and recommended method of treatment for the biomass.
This project will help a sagging economy in Grant County. The lumber industry will be in the final stages of
decline, 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 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.
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.
Response:
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?
There have 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 were 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. Grant and Wheeler Counties are economically depressed and
will benefit from this project.
Response:
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, assign a control
number and authorize the work to start.
October 2002 and ongoing
Service Forester
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.
October 2002 and ongoing
Service Forester
Use projects as an example of fire hazard
reduction and improved forest health.
October 2002 and ongoing
Service Forester & Unit Forester
Enclosure 3D - Project Budget
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Personnel
Service Forester 2 mths
Office Specialist .5 mths
Subtotal
Fringe Benefits
OPE 37.23%
Subtotal
Applicant
Partner 1
Partner 2
Total
$7,400
$1,100
$8,500
$7,400
$1,100
$8,500
$3,200
$3,200
$3,200
$3,200
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$500
$500
$500
$500
Travel
Subtotal
Equipment
Vehicle
Subtotal
Supplies
Service & Supply
Subtotal
Contractual
Landowner Cost Share Agmts
Subtotal
Other
Agency Administration
Subtotal
Total Costs
$85,000
$20,000
$105,000
$85,000
$20,000
$105,000
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$101,700
$121,700
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.