Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Attachment A
Projected Accomplishments Table
Performance Measure
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed
function and resilience
Acres of forest vegetation established
Acres of forest vegetation improved
Code
Highest priority acres treated for invasive terrestrial and
aquatic species on NFS lands
WTRSHDRSTR-ANN
FOR-VEG-EST
FOR-VEG-IMP
INVPLTNXWD-FEDAC
INVSPE-TERRFED-AC
Acres of water or soil resources protected, maintained or
improved to achieve desired watershed conditions.
S&W-RSRCIMP
Acres of lake habitat restored or enhanced
HBT-ENH-LAK
HBT-ENHSTRM
Manage noxious weeds and invasive plants
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using CFLR
funds
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using other
FS funds
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using Partner
Funds1
3,200
CFLR funds to
be used over
10 years
Other FS
funds to be
used over 10
years2
Partner funds
to be used
over 10 years
$600,000
170
170
$41,000
$41,000
7
7
$100,000
$450,000
1
These values should reflect only units treated on National Forest System Land
Matching Contributions: The CFLR Fund may be used to pay for up to 50 percent of the cost of carrying out and monitoring ecological restoration treatments on National Forest System (NFS)
lands. The following BLI’s have been identified as appropriate for use as matching funds to meet the required minimum 50% match of non-CFLR funds: ARRA, BDBD, CMEX, CMII, CMLG, CMRD,
CMTL, CWFS, CWKV, CWK2, NFEX, NFLM (Boundary), NFMG (ECAP/AML), NFN3, NFTM, NFVW, NFWF, PEPE, RBRB, RTRT, SFSF, SPFH, SPEX, SPS4, SSCC, SRS2, VCNP, VCVC, WFEX, WFW3, WFHF.
2
The following BLI’s have been identified as NOT appropriate for use as matching funds to meet the required minimum 50% match of non-CFLR funds: ACAC, CWF2, EXEX, EXSL, EXSC,
FDFD, FDRF, FRRE, LALW, LBLB, LBTV, LGCY, NFIM, NFLE, NFLM (non-boundary), NFMG (non-ECAP), NFPN, NFRG, NFRW, POOL, QMQM, RIRI, SMSM, SPCF, SPCH, SPIA, SPIF,
SPS2, SPS3, SPS5, SPST, SPUF, SPVF, TPBP, TPTP, URUR, WFPR, WFSU.
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Performance Measure
Acres of terrestrial habitat restored or enhanced
Code
HBT-ENHTERR
Acres of rangeland vegetation improved
RG-VEG-IMP
Miles of high clearance system roads receiving
maintenance
RD-HC-MAIN
Miles of passenger car system roads receiving
maintenance
RD-PC-MAINT
Miles of road decommissioned
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using CFLR
funds
495,000
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using other
FS funds
504,000
80
800
180
1600
RD-DECOM
2
16
Miles of passenger car system roads improved
RD-PC-IMP
4
23
Miles of high clearance system road improved
RD-HC-IMP
22
158
Number of stream crossings constructed or
reconstructed to provide for aquatic organism passage
STRM-CROSMTG-STD
TL-MAINTSTD
Miles of system trail maintained to standard
Miles of system trail improved to standard
TL-IMP-STD
Miles of property line marked/maintained to standard
LND-BL-MRKMAINT
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using Partner
Funds1
75
75
CFLR funds to
be used over
10 years
Other FS
funds to be
used over 10
years2
$6,914,000
Part incl. in
TMBR-VOLSLD and FPFUELS
$6,914,000
Part incl. in
TMBR-VOLSLD and FPFUELS
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
$5,400
Partner funds
to be used
over 10 years
$26,600
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Performance Measure
Code
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using CFLR
funds
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using other
FS funds
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using Partner
Funds1
CFLR funds to
be used over
10 years
Other FS
funds to be
used over 10
years2
Acres of forestlands treated using timber sales
TMBR-SALESTRT-AC
23,000
35,000
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
TMBR-VOLSLD
Volume of timber sold (CCF)
TMBR-VOLSLD
160,000
255,000
$5,175,000
$7,875,000
Included in
HBT-ENHTERR and
TMBR-VOLSLD
Included in
HBT-ENHTERR and
TMBR-VOLSLD
Green tons from small diameter and low value trees
removed from NFS lands and made available for bioenergy production
Acres of hazardous fuels treated outside the
wildland/urban interface (WUI) to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildland fire
Acres of hazardous fuels treated inside the
wildland/urban interface (WUI) to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildland fire
Acres of wildland/urban interface (WUI) high priority
hazardous fuels treated to reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildland fire
Number of priority acres treated annually for invasive
species on Federal lands
Number of priority acres treated annually for native pests
on Federal lands
Partner funds
to be used
over 10 years
BIO-NRG
50,000
50,000
FP-FUELSNON-WUI
225,000
225,000
35,000*
$6,300,000
$6,300,000
$875,000*
FP-FUELSNON-WUI
80,000
80,000
35,000*
$2,240,000
2,240,000
$875,000*
FP-FUELSWUI
SP-INVSPEFED-AC
SP- NATIVE –
FED-AC
* USFS State and Private funding sent to the states of Arkansas and Oklahoma for Stevens/Wyden Act accomplishments. Figured at $25.00 per acre.
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Attachment B - Reduction of related wildfire management costs
R-CAT Results Summary
Proposal Name: Ouachita Shortleaf Bluestem Community
Start Year
End Year
2011
2019
Total Treatment Acres
Average Treatment Duration
495,000.00
3
Discounted Anticipated Cost Savings - No Beneficial Use
$
97,938,307
Discounted Anticipated Cost Savings - Low Beneficial Use
$
97,938,307
Discounted Anticipated Cost Savings - Moderate Beneficial
Use
$
97,938,307
Discounted Anticipated Cost Savings - High Beneficial Use
$
97,938,307
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Data Sources and Assumptions – Documentation of data sources and assumptions utilized to populate the table.
Proposal Name: Ouachita Shortleaf
Bluestem Community
Documentation Page
This page is intended to help you record and communicate the
assumptions and calculations that feed the risk and cost analysis
tool package spreadsheet
Response / Information Column
Was the analysis prospective (projecting activities, costs and
revenues that are planned by the proposal) or retrospective (using
actual acres, revenues and costs in an analysis looking back over
the life of the project)?
Prospective
Start year rationale:
2011 was chosen at start date in hopes that funding is available to begin
implementation.
End year rationale:
2019 was chosen as the end date since that is the duration that legislation
currently has authorizes for funding and because the planned ecosystem
restoration falls in that time frame.
Duration of treatments rationale:
In the Southern Region, prescribed burns are frequently effective for up to 3
years. Some burns may prove to be more or less effective at restoring
ecosystems to historic condition classes based on fire intensity and current
vegetation type, but, on the average, burns prove to be effective for at least 3
years.
All dollar amounts entered should reflect undiscounted or
nominal costs, as they are discounted automatically for you in
the R-CAT spreadsheet tool? Did you provide undiscounted costs,
and in what year data are your costs and revenues provided.
All dollar amounts are based on 2011 estimates.
Average treatment cost per acre rationale:
Rationale for actual costs per acre of treatment by year is used:
The treatment cost is based on the 2011 cost to conduct prescribed burns
and timber sales on the Ouachita NF, plus the added cost of additional
resources to assist with the additional target (for example, the cost of an
additional exclusive use helicopter during the prescribed burn season. The
acreage used is a realistic implementation target for prescribed burning for
each year.
The cost per treatment acre reflects the cost of implementing prescribe burns
and timber sales.
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Average treatment revenue per acre rationale:
This tool is intended to be used to estimate Forest Service fire
program costs only, did you conduct your analysis this way or
have you taken an all lands approach?
Total treatment acres calculations, assumptions:
Treatment timing rationale with NEPA analysis considerations:
Annual Fire Season Suppression Cost Estimate Pre Treatment,
Assumptions and Calculations
Did you use basic Landfire Data for you Pretreatment Landscape?
Did you modify Landfire data to portray the pretreatment
landscape and fuel models?
Did you use ArcFuels to help you plan fuel treatments?
Did you use other modeling to help plan fuel treatments, if so
which modeling?
Did you model fire season costs with the Large Fire Simulator?
If, so who helped you with this modeling?
If not, how did you estimate costs, provide details here:
Did you apply the stratified cost index (SCI) to your Fsim results?
Who helped you apply SCI to your FSIM results?
Did you filter to remove Fsim fires smaller than 300acres and
larger than a reasonable threshold?
What is the upper threshold you used?
Did you use median pre treatment costs per fire season?
Did you use median post treatment costs per fire season?
Revenue costs were developed from historical cost analysis of the timber
management program by the Timber Staff.
The costs reflect the Ouachita National Forest fire program cost.
Many of the proposed treatments are currently covered under NEPA. The
additional acres are in the process of NEPA analysis and should be covered
given the Forest's rate of NEPA processing.
This number is the historical average of the cost of fires over the last 25
years.
No
No
No, we tiered our fuel treatments to the Forest Land Management Plan that
identifies high priority areas for ecosystem restoration and endangered
species management, including habitat for species such as the red-cockaded
woodpecker and the American burying beetle as well as old growth
conditions.
No
No
All costs are based on historical fire suppression costs on the Ouachita NF.
No
Large Fire Costs are based on a 25-year historical average.
We did not have an upper threshold.
Yes
Yes. We used the same cost for post treatment as pre treatment, since most
our fires (even our large fires) are of short duration and thus the cost is not
that different between pre and post since our initial attack cost is fairly
consistent.
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Did you test the statistical difference of the fire season cost
distributions using a univariate test?
What were the results?
No
Post fire costs were treated the same as pre-treatment costs.
Did you estimate Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER)
costs in you analysis?
Did you use H codes or some other approach to estimate these
costs?
Did these cost change between pre and post treatment?
Did you estimate long term rehabilitation and reforestation costs in
your analysis?
How did you develop these estimates, and did these cost change
between pre and post treatment?
On the Ouachita NF, we have traditionally had very little or no BAER cost
associated with our wildfires.
Did you include small fire cost estimates in your analysis?
Yes
If so, how did you estimate these costs, what time period is used
as a reference, and did these cost change between pre and post
treatment?
This number is the historical average of the cost of small fires over the last 25
years. The cost between pre and post were kept the same since the cost of
IA is fairly consistent.
Did you include beneficial use fire as a cost savings mechanism in
your analysis?
How did you estimate the percent of contiguous area where
monitoring is an option for pretreatment landscape?
How did you estimate the percent of contiguous area where
monitoring is an option for post treatment landscape, and why did
you select the percentage of your landscape for low, moderate
and high?
How did you derive an estimate for the percentage of full
suppression costs used in fire monitoring for beneficial use?
Did you ensure that you clicked on all the calculation buttons in
cells in column E after entering your estimates?
Did you make any additional modifications that should be
documented?
No
No
No
We did not develop these costs.
No
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Attachment C
Members of the Collaborative
3
Organization Name
Contact Name
Phone Number
Arkansas Forestry Commission
Larry Nance
501-296-1942
Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission
David Goad
501-223-6359
Arkansas Natural Heritage
Commission
Karen Smith
501-324-9619
Arkansas State University
James C. Bednarz
870-972-3320
Arkansas Wildlife Federation
Audubon Arkansas
Wayne Shumake
Mary M. Smith
514-224-9200
501-244-2229
Jim Crouch & Associates
Jim Crouch
479-968-2154
Monarch Joint Venture
Priya Shahani
612- 625-8304
Monarch Watch
Orley R. Taylor
785-864-4441
National Wild Turkey
Federation
Dennis Daniel
936-208-9698
Oklahoma Department of
Wildlife Conservation
John Skeen
405-521-3851
Role in Collaborative3
Smoke guidelines; support for cooperative activities across
federal/private landownership boundaries
Assist with turkey research project monitoring within
project area, in-kind assistance of over $100,000.
Numerous studies and monitoring on game and non-game
animals.
Biodiversity Inventories
Study to examine potential impacts of extensive prescribed
burning on ground nesting birds
Assist in field work and habitat work in project area.
Environmental education and project bird monitoring
Recommendations for improving merchantability of sales in
pine-bluestem areas; strong advocate for ecosystem
management approach that still yields wood products
Partnership to re-establish native milkweeds in 2000 acres
in project area
Partnership to re-establish native milkweeds in 2000 acres
in project area
Funds of $20,000 to prescribe burn. Assist with turkey
research project within project area, in-kind assistance of
over $100,000
Cooperative prescribed burning and RCW habitat
improvement work
Responses to this category should reflect the role the entity plays in the collaborative process, the interests they represent and/or any other function they serve in the collaborative. Responses could
include descriptions such as “proposal author”, “Will participate in monitoring”, etc. If the collaborative member participated specifically in the development of this proposal, please be clear about
what their participation in developing the proposal was.
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Ouachita Biological Survey
Ronald A. Van
Den Bussche
Caryn C. Vaughn
Ouachita National Forest
Bill Pell
501-321-5320
James Bibler
479-968-2154
Nick Prough
816-365-0318
Habitat work and assistance with prescribed burning
James Forbes
479- 637-2155
Monitor and control exotics and invasives along roadsides
Marion T. Mathis
479-928-5552
Track economic changes
Oklahoma State University
Ouachita Timber Purchasers
Group
Quail Upland Wildfire
Federation, Inc.
Scott County, Arkansas
SEBASCOTT Economic
Development Council
405-744-5663
405-325-4034
$32,000 for Bachman’s sparrow and shortleaf pine growth
and yield study
Freshwater Mussels and Environmental studies
The Dedicated Employees of the
Ouachita National Forest
Purchasing almost every available sale for thinning and
other restoration harvests
Southern Research Station
Jim Guldin
501-623-1180
Uneven-aged silviculture for the loblolly and shortleaf pine
forest cover types study, wildlife surveys and studies and
ongoing water sample analysis of shortleaf pine-bluestem
restoration areas
Tall Timbers Research, Inc.
Ronald E.
Masters
850-893-4153
Wildlife studies and research within project area
The Nature Conservancy - AR
Scott Simon
501-663-6699
The Nature Conservancy - OK
Mike Fuhr
918-585-1117
Travis Lumber Company, Inc.
Terry L. Bryant
479-928-4446
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jim Boggs
501-513-4470
University of Arkansas
James Rankin
479-575-5901
Average of $10,000 each year over the 10 years bird
monitoring in project area. Assist with prescribed burning.
Average of $10,000 each year over the 10 years bird
monitoring in project area. Assist with prescribed burning.
Major timber purchaser in pine-bluestem areas
American Burying Beetle 2010 Survey Protocols and
collaboratively developed ABB Conservation Strategy
RCW work by faculty and students within pine-bluestem
project area
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Attachment D – Letter of Commitment
February 7, 2011
Chief Tom Tidwell
U.S. Forest Service
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chief:
We, the undersigned members of the Ouachita Mountains Shortleaf-Bluestem Alliance, are
committed to working collaboratively to achieve the following goals:
1. Restoration of shortleaf pine-bluestem grass ecosystems and associated populations of
animals and plants native to the Ouachita Mountains
2. Reduction of the destructive and expensive wild fires in the affected landscapes
3. Improvement of economic circumstances for people in the Ouachita Mountains, including
creation of jobs thru the proper use, protection, and management of the forest resources as
laid out in the forest plan
4. Monitoring and conducting of needed research to evaluate effects of restoration activities
on desired conditions for plants, animals, and communities and
5. Enhancement of recreational opportunities in the area, including hunting, fishing, and nature
tourism
The Ouachita Mountains Shortleaf-Bluestem Alliance is made up of a broad cross-section of
private non-governmental organizations and businesses as well as federal and state agencies
and universities. Your approval of the proposed Ouachita Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Proposal for funding will greatly accelerate and enhance the efforts of this
collaborative group. Although we know money is tight we urge the quick and full funding of the
Ouachita CFLRP proposal! This will ensure many more acres of restoration similar to what you
saw when you and Senator Lincoln visited the forest in 2010. We hope you will visit us again
soon.
Sincerely,
James C. Bednarz,
Director of the Wildlife Ecology and
Management Program
Arkansas State University
James Bibler, Chairman
Ouachita Timber Purchasers Group
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Jim Boggs, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Terry L. Bryant, V. P. Procurement &
Land Management
Travis Lumber Company, Inc.
Jim Crouch, Owner
Jim Crouch & Associates
Dennis Daniel, Regional Biologist
National Wild Turkey Federation
D. Colton Dennis, President
AR Ch of the American Fisheries
Society
James Forbes, County Judge
Scott County, Arkansas
Jane Anderson
Digitally signed by Jane Anderson
DN: cn=Jane Anderson, o=AGFC, ou=Wildlife
Management Division,
email=jeanderson@AGFC.STATE.AR.US, c=US
Date: 2011.02.11 13:28:53 -06'00'
Jane Anderson, Assistant Chief of Wildlife
Management Division
Mike Fuhr, Oklahoma State
DirectorThe Nature Conservancy
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
Cory Gray, President
AR Ch of The Wildlife Society
Jim Guldin, Project Leader
Southern Research Station
Lundy Kiger
AES Shady Point, LLC
Dr. Chris Kellner
Professor of Wildlife Science
Arkansas Tech University
Ronald E. Masters, Director of
Research
Tall Timbers Research, Inc.
Marion T. Mathis,
Executive Secretary
SEBASCOTT Economic Development
Council
Larry Nance, Deputy State Forester
SEBASCOTT
Bill Pell, Acting Forest Supervisor
Ouachita National Forest
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Arkansas Forestry Commission
Nick Prough
Director of Chapter Development
Chief Wildlife Biologist
Quail and Upland Wildlife Federation,
Inc.
James Rankin, Vice Provost for
Research and Economic Development
University of Arkansas
Scott Simon, Arkansas State Director
The Nature Conservancy
Priya Shahani, Program Coordinator
Monarch Joint Venture
Wayne Shumake, President
Arkansas Wildlife Federation
John Skeen, Senior Wildlife Biologist
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation
Mary M. Smith, Education Director
Audubon Arkansas
Dr. Chris Kellner
Professor of Wildlife Science
Arkansas Tech University
Orley R. Taylor, Director
Monarch Watch
Ronald A. Van Den Bussche,
Associate Dean of Research
Oklahoma State University
Caryn C. Vaughn, Director
Ouachita Biological Survey
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Attachment E
Predicted Jobs Table from Treat Spreadsheet:
Employment (# Part and Full-time Jobs)
Direct
Indirect and Induced
Labor Inc (2010 $)
Total
Direct
Indirect and Induced
Total
Thinning-Biomass: Commercial Forest Products
Logging
12.8
14.1
26.9
509,770
586,384
1,096,154
Sawmills
17.9
37.3
55.2
770,574
1,403,550
2,174,124
Plywood and Veneer Softwood
-
-
-
-
-
-
Plywood and Veneer Hardwood
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oriented Strand Board (OSB)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mills Processing Roundwood Pulp Wood
2.2
8.9
11.0
186,809
372,753
559,562
Other Timber Products
-
-
-
-
-
-
Facilities Processing Residue From Sawmills
5.5
21.4
26.9
412,057
816,166
1,228,223
Facilities Processing Residue From Plywood/Veneer
-
-
-
-
-
-
Biomass--Cogen
0.2
0.1
0.3
14,693
9,135
23,828
Total Commercial Forest Products
38.5
81.8
120.3
1,893,904
3,187,988
5,081,892
Facilities, Watershed, Roads and Trails
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Abandoned Mine Lands
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ecosystem Restoration, Hazardous Fuels, and Forest Health
45.0
9.3
54.3
1,445,074.2
388,147.4
1,833,221.6
Other Project Activities
Commercial Firewood
0.0
0.0
0.0
429.0
261.3
690.3
Contracted Monitoring
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Other Project Activities
45.0
9.13
54.3
1,445,503
388,409
1,833,912
FS Implementation and Monitoring
27.5
4.7
32.2
431,370
189,055
620,425
Total Other Project Activities & Monitoring
72.6
14.0
86.5
$1,876,873
$577,464
$2,454,337
Total All Impacts
111.0
95.8
206.8
$3,770,770
$3,765,451
$7,536,228
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
 Attachment F
 Funding Estimate
(Copy table and provide the planned funding for each additional fiscal year). Funds to be used on NFS lands for
ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY 2011 to match funding from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2011 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2011 Funding for Implementation
$2,682,500
2. FY 2011 Funding for Monitoring
$166,070
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$1,298,685
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
$1,298,685
5. Partnership Funds
$0
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$51,200
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$200,000
8. Other (specify)
$0
9. FY 2011 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$2,848,570
10. FY 2011 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$341,500
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2011 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
$160,000
Private Funding
(Copy table and provide the planned funding for each additional fiscal year). Funds to be used on NFS lands for
ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY 2012 to match funding from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2012 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2012 Funding for Implementation
$2,782,500
2. FY 2012 Funding for Monitoring
$105,270
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$1,075,385
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
$1,075,385
5. Partnership Funds
$250,000
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$187,000
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$300,000
8. Other (specify)
$0
9. FY 2012 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$2,887,770
10. FY 2012 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$2,429,500
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2012 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
$160,000
Private Funding
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
(Copy table and provide the planned funding for each additional fiscal year). Funds to be used on NFS lands for
ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY 2013 to match funding from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2013 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2013 Funding for Implementation
$2,982,030
2. FY 2013 Funding for Monitoring
$100,470
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$1,240,900
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
$1,140,900
5. Partnership Funds
$125,000
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$175,700
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$ 400,000
8. Other (specify)
$0
9. FY 2013 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$3,082,500
10. FY 2013 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$2,429,500
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2013 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
$160,000
Private Funding
(Copy table and provide the planned funding for each additional fiscal year). Funds to be used on NFS lands for
ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY 2014 to match funding from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2014 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2014 Funding for Implementation
$2,882,500
2. FY 2014 Funding for Monitoring
$69,000
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$1,174,652
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
$1,174,652
5. Partnership Funds
$100,000
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$102,196
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$400,000
8. Other (specify)
$0
9. FY 2014 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$2,951,500
10. FY 2014 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$2,389,500
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2014 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
$160,000
Private Funding
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
(Copy table and provide the planned funding for each additional fiscal year). Funds to be used on NFS lands
for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY 2015 to match funding from
the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2015 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
$2,882,500
1. FY 2015 Funding for Implementation
2. FY 2015 Funding for Monitoring
$69,000
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$1,234,250
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
$1,234,250
5. Partnership Funds
$0
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$83,000
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$400,000
8. Other (specify)
$0
9. FY 2015 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$2,951,500
10. FY 2015 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$2,389,500
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2015 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
$160,000
Private Funding
(Copy table and provide the planned funding for each additional fiscal year). Funds to be used on NFS lands for
ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY 2016 to match funding from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2016 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2016 Funding for Implementation
$3,032,500
2. FY 2016 Funding for Monitoring
$69,000
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$1,234,250
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
$1,234,250
5. Partnership Funds
$0
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$83,000
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$550,000
8. Other (specify)
$0
9. FY 2016 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$3,101,500
10. FY 2016 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$2,389,500
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2016 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
$160,000
Private Funding
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
(Copy table and provide the planned funding for each additional fiscal year). Funds to be used on NFS lands
for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY 2017 to match funding from
the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2017 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2017 Funding for Implementation
$2,882,500
2. FY 2017 Funding for Monitoring
$69,000
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$1,234,250
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
$1,234,250
5. Partnership Funds
$0
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$83,000
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$400,000
8. Other (specify)
$0
9. FY 2017 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$2,951,500
10. FY 2017 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$2,389,500
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2017 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
$160,000
Private Funding
(Copy table and provide the planned funding for each additional fiscal year). Funds to be used on NFS lands
for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY 2018 to match funding from
the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2018 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2018 Funding for Implementation
$2,782,500
2. FY 2018 Funding for Monitoring
$69,000
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$1,234,250
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
$1,234,250
5. Partnership Funds
$0
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$83,000
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$300,000
8. Other (specify)
$0
9. FY 2018 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$2,851,500
10. FY 2018 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$2,389,500
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2018 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
$160,000
Private Funding
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
(Copy table and provide the planned funding for each additional fiscal year). Funds to be used on NFS lands
for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY 2019 to match funding from
the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2019 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2019 Funding for Implementation
$2,982,500
2. FY 2019 Funding for Monitoring
$69,000
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$1,234,250
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
$1,234,250
5. Partnership Funds
$0
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$83,000
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$500,000
8. Other (specify)
$0
9. FY 2019 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$3,051,500
10. FY 2019 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$2,389,500
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2019 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
$160,000
Private Funding
(Copy table and provide the planned funding for each additional fiscal year). Funds to be used on NFS lands for
ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY 2020 to match funding from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2020 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2020 Funding for Implementation
$2,932,500
2. FY 2020 Funding for Monitoring
$69,000
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$1,234,250
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
$1,234,250
5. Partnership Funds
$0
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$83,000
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$450,000
8. Other (specify)
$0
9. FY 2020 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$3,001,500
10. FY 2020 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$2,389,500
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2020 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
$160,000
Private Funding
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Attachment G
Maps
G-1 Overview of Project Area
G-2 Priority Treatment Areas by Watersheds
G-3 NEPA Ready and In Process Areas by Watersheds
G-4 Priority 1 Treatment Activity Map by Watersheds
G-5 Priority 2 Treatment Activity Map by Watersheds
G-6 Priority 3 Treatment Activity Map by Watersheds
G-7 Communities at Risk within and 5 miles surrounding Ouachita NF
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community, Ouachita NF: Arkansas and Oklahoma