107 National Fire Plan Grant Proposal 3.15.2002

To address these concerns, this project will assess the current service delivery system, map high poverty areas at high risk of fire, and then develop a coordinated regional strategy to

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: Center for Watershed and Community Health, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon.

or 503-725-8101 541-744-6660 bdoppelt.f10@worldnet.att.net

Address (Street or P O Box, City, State, Zip): Best: 5729 Main St, #248, Springfield, Oregon 97478

Project Coordinator

Project Coordinator (Name and Title ):

Bob Doppelt, Director, PSU Center for Watershed and Community Health

Organization/Jurisdiction: The CWCH is affiliated with the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University However, we have our own non-profit status also which allows programs to be operated without university overhead charges taken out The CWCH will be moving to the Department of Planning and Public Policy at the University of Oregon at the end of Spring term, 2002.

Project Information

Project Title: Wildfire Policy And Rural Poverty Alleviation: A Project To Develop a Coordinated Plan to Reduce The Risk Of Wildfires On The Rural Poor And Distressed Communities

Federal Funding Request: $231,188 (63% of total budget)

Total Project Funding: $365,899 (Note: We have submitted grant applications to numerous foundations and we are confident that we will raise the $134,711 needed to complete the budget)

Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize: No

Brief Project Description:

Despite the best intentions, existing wildfire-related policies and programs find it difficult to help the rural poor within the wildland-urban interface protect themselves from wildfires Our research suggests that approximately 3–5 million of the 10-15 million residents

in the W-UI of the west lack incomes high enough to meet basic economic needs with enough left over to cover the expense of wildfire protection Wildfires intensify poverty by having a pervasive, disproportionately negative impact on those households and

communities lacking adequate resources to reduce the flammability of nearby wildlands, fire-proof homes and other structures, respond quickly when wildfires occur, and recover from economic losses resulting from fires The impacts also go in the reverse direction, with poverty increasing the incidence of wildfires, raising the costs of fighting fires, and creating additional risks for firefighters These problems exist, in part, because there is little communication or coordinated planning between agencies working on land management/ fire issues and those addressing rural poverty Local fire districts and other government fire prevention programs also lack the capacity

or skills to identify, contact, and provide fire prevention service to the rural poor To address these concerns, this project will assess the current service delivery system, map high poverty areas at high risk of fire, and then develop a coordinated regional strategy to fill gaps

in fire prevention service delivery The strategy will be aimed at closing service delivery gaps and building local capacity to provide fire prevention services to the rural poor The strategy will be tested through a series of pilot projects, and after a thorough evaluation,

Project Location: Oregon and Washington County: all with high risks of fire and

high poverty rates All with high fire risks

Project Type: Check appropriate project type More than one type may be checked If only Box (4) is checked, use Enclosure 4 Could Apply to All Three Grants:

(1) X Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Project

(2) X Wildland Urban Interface Education and Prevention Project

(3) X Community Planning for Fire Protection Project (4) X Possibly 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:

Address these items

as applicable:

 project location

 project implementation

 anticipated outcomes

 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)

 Evironmental, cultural and historical resource requirements

Response: Project location: Oregon and Washington

… Project implementation: To develop and implement a coordinated strategy to build local capacity and execute action plans to reduce the risk of wildfires on poor households within the wildland-urban interface of the Pacific Northwest

… Anticipated outcomes: Will include but not be limited to: a) A regional network of individuals and

organizations focused on developing a coordinated plan of attack to close gaps in service delivery of fire

prevention services to the rural poor throughout the region; b) the identification of overlaps, weak spots and gaps

in services to assist the rural poor with fire prevention activities; c) A credible system for identifying and

mapping wildland-urban interface areas with high poverty concerns and risk of wildfire; d) Greatly expanded public awareness of the linkages between wildfire-rural poverty issues; e) The implementation 2-4 pilot projects

to test the strategy of building local capacity through local non-profits to provide fire prevention services to the rural poor in their region; f) A majority of the homes and properties of the rural poor treated for fuel reductions and fireproofing in 2-4 pilot project areas; g) A formal assessment of their effectiveness of the strategy

employed in the pilot projects; h) Recommendations for ways to close gaps in service delivery and provide fire prevention services to the rural poor throughout the regionwide

… Measures and reporting: Program Evaluation Reports to USFS Region 6 (and interested parties): A) detailing number of households served, acreage treated, the cost-efficiency of the project (expenditures spent on fire-proofing poor households vs other expenditures), number of people hired to work, and other items B) detailing specific recommendations for changes in state and federal policies to better support and expand project work, on-going technical support to assist local non-profits and provide quality control, strategies to link local capacity building with market development for the utilization of small diameter wood

Partners: Prime Contractor: The Center for Watershed and Community Health (a non-profit affiliated with Portland State University Hatfield School of Government in July the CWCH will be moving to the Department

of Planning and Public Policy, University of Oregon); Subcontractors: GIS Mapping (probably through the UO), ECONorthwest (natural-resource management experts), FireSafe Spokane (Bill Wilburn), 2-4 non-profits to be identified; Steering Committee of participants (most have already been contacted and voiced interest in

participating): Government (US Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau

of Indian Affairs, Oregon State Forestry, Washington Department of Natural Resources, League of Oregon Cities, Washington League of Cities); Civic Groups Oregon Disaster Relief Network (Medford, Grants Pass OR), Central Oregon Partnership (Bend/Redmond/Prineville), Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, Lutheran Family Services (Klamath Falls and Tillamook), Inland Lands Council (Spokane), FireSafe Spokane,

Association of Washington Cities, Washington Association of Churches); rural fire protection districts; Oregon Housing and Community Development; others

… Project income: None to date Grants proposals have been sent to numerous foundations

… Project time frames: June 2002 through October 2003

… Specify types of activities and equipment used: N/A

… Amount or extent of actions (acres, number of homes, etc.): Pilot projects in 2-4 communities (Spread

between Washington and Oregon); Established local capacity to fireproof the homes of the rural poor in most if not all rural areas of in Washington and Oregon … Environmental, cultural and historical resource requirements:

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,

sub-criteria 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 This project promotes reduction of risk in high hazard areas or communities by: 1) Developing a coordinated regional strategy among federal, state, and local governments, civic leaders and organizations focused on poverty to reduce the impacts of wildfires on poor households within the wildland-urban interface; 2) Identifying overlaps, weak areas and gaps in fire proofing services for the rural poor; 3) Identifying and mapping priority areas of high wildfire risk and high poverty; 3) Developing a draft strategy to close gaps in fire prevention service delivery to the rural poor and testing of the strategy through pilot projects aimed at building local capacity to help the rural poor to protect themselves from wildfires, and other means; 3) Expanding public awareness of the relationship between rural poverty and wildfires; 4) Developing fire reduction plans and implementing those plans for the homes/properties of the rural poor in 2-4 pilot project regions; 5) Identifying policy recommendations based on the pilot projects to expand Fire proofing programs to the rural poor regionwide

B This project protects federal lands by reducing the risk of fire on private lands that can expand to federal lands It protects communities by reducing fire risks to their poorest members thus preventing fire expansion to other

neighborhoods and reducing the burden on local social service programs.

C The project will create a template for community fire strategies which can be coordinated with a regional strategy.

D We have had extensive communication with agencies and organizations regionwide about the proposed project and find strong support In fact, the project strategy was developed through conversations with people across the region.

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 year-round 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 local fire prevention programs we help organize will hire between 4-12 people (about 4-8 people for a

150 mile radius approx based on experience elsewhere) and pay $9-15 per hr These programs can become self-sustaining and can be year round jobs depending on the location (i.e amount of snow etc)

B The whole point of this project is to develop a model applicable for communities' regionwide

C Forest fuels will be removed by hand and other means when needed

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 Although a number of regional, state and local coordinating efforts exist (e.g PN Wildfire Coordinating Group), there is no group with the specific focus of developing a coordinated strategy to help the rural poor to fireproof their homes and communities Therefore, a regional steering committee will be formed to coordinate strategic planning, education, training, and local capacity building efforts for this end A local steering committee will be formed within each of the pilot project areas to perform the same roles

B To our knowledge there is no coordination on this specific issue yet Participants from the following agencies and organizations will be asked to sit on the steering committee We have talked with most of organizations already and there is strong interest in the project:

Government: US Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service; Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Indian Affairs;

Oregon State Forestry; Washington Department of Natural Resources; League of Oregon Cities; Washington League of Cities; Oregon State Fire Marshall; City of Bend, Oregon, Fire Department; Oregon Governor's Office; Washington Governor's Office; Others to be contact.

Civic Groups: Oregon Disaster Relief Network (southern Oregon), Central Oregon Partnership, Ecumenical Ministries

of Oregon, Lutheran Family Services (Klamath falls and Tillamook), Inland Lands Council (Spokane), FireSafe

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 Most of the groups listed above have provided some type of input into the proposed project strategy In fact, the strategy was developed through discussions with these groups

B We already have strong interest in pilot projects from the Central Oregon Partnership, an umbrella group funded by the NW Area Foundation which is focused on poverty in the Bend/Redmond/Prineville area, the Disaster Relief Network, which is a faith community related organization in the Medford/Grants Pass area of southern Oregon; groups in central and northeast Washington including the Inland Lands Council, which has

a small fire proofing program (not focused on the rural poor) and others Other organizations are being

contacted

Enclosure 4C – Project Work Form

and Costs Per Unit

Task 1: Organize and Facilitate Operations

of Regional Steering Committee Committee

will oversee the development of a

coordinated strategic plan, education,

training, and local capacity building efforts to

fill service delivery gaps and ensure that fire

prevention services are provided to the rural

poor regionwide Participants from local,

state, and federal agencies, & organizations

focused on the rural poor will be asked to sit

on the committee Most have already been

contacted and agreed to participate (see

summary page for names of organizations).

Subtasks and Deliverables Complete Committee Organization:

July 2002 First meeting: July 2002

CWCH with direction and support from core group already involved with the project.

Costs: $47,725 (.25 FTE of staff time plus expenses for 18 months for steering committee staffing and coordination) Task 2: Complete Service Delivery System

Analysis Identify the types and locations of

existing programs that provide fire

prevention services to the rural poor

Produce report outlining strengths,

weaknesses, overlaps, limitations, and gaps

in services.

Subtasks and Deliverables Draft Report: September, 2002 Final Report: November, 2002

CWCH with support from steering committee and associated agencies.

Costs: $26,513 (.5 FTE staff time for 5 months plus expenses).

Task 3: Identify and Map High Risk Areas

Identify and map high priority areas of the

Pacific Northwest Priority areas are those

at high risk of wildfire (using existing USFS

maps) and those with high poverty rates

Subtasks and Deliverables Mapping Completed: November 2002 CWCH with oversight from

steering committee and mapping work done by GIS contractor (possibly

UO students)

Costs: $28,256 (.25 FTE staff time for 5 months plus expenses plus GIS contractor).

Task 4: Develop Coordinated Strategy

Based on the assessment of the current

service delivery system and the

identification of high priority areas, a

comprehensive draft strategy will be

developed to close service delivery gaps in

providing fire prevention services to the rural

poor throughout Oregon and Washington

The strategy will be tested through a series

of pilot projects.

Subtasks and Deliverables Strategy Completed: December 31, 2002

CWCH with support from steering committee and associated agencies

Costs: None -covered under Task

1

Task 5: Choose Priority Pilot Project Areas

and Initiate Outreach and Dialogue

Steering committee selects 2-4 high priority

areas (1-2 in Oregon and Washington) for

pilot projects where insufficient services

currently exist Apprise local civic leaders,

public and social service agencies, and

affected citizens in pilot regions about the

rural poverty-+wildfire links and the strategy

to build local capacity to address the issues.

Organize local steering committee to ensure

coordination and local support Identify local

non-profit to operate program.

Subtasks and Deliverables Pilot Area Selection Completed:

December 31, 2002 Outreach and Local Organizing:

January-February 2003.

CWCH with direction from steering committee and local government/civic leaders, state and federal agencies.

Costs: $15,908 (.5 FTE for staff for 3 months plus expenses).

Task 6: Develop Training Program Tap the

expertise of local, state and federal fire

agencies and other organizations such as

FireSafe Spokane Training program to

include site identification, outreach methods,

educational handouts, recordkeeping

strategies, grant writing, fire plan

development and execution, monitoring etc.

Subtasks and Deliverables Curriculum Developed and Providers Identified: January-February 2003

CWCH and contractor, with support and oversight from steering committee Costs: $15,302 (.25 FTE for staff for 2 months plus expenses and training contractors) Task 7: Conduct Pilot Projects in 2-4 priority

regions Work with local group (non-profit) to

hire and train local people who will complete

outreach, identify sites, produce

fire-proofing plans, complete on-site work,

identify needed resources, and monitor

progress Encourage hiring and training of

local low-income community members when

possible

Subtasks and Deliverables Organize Programs, Hire, Train and Prepare Workers: March 2003 (work will actually start in April)

Site Work Begins: April 2003 Pilot Project Ends: September 30,

2003

UO CWCH working with local non-profit providers with oversight and direction from steering committee Costs: $55,678 plus (.75 FTE for staff for

7 months plus expenses) plus

$140,000 to 4 non-profits

Task 8 : Evaluate the Program Deliver an

assessment of the pilot projects to the

steering committee, USFS Region 6, and

other interested parties detailing: number of

households served, acreage treated, the

cost-efficiency of the project (expenditures

spent on fire-proofing poor households vs

other expenditures), number of people hired

to do the work, etc Discuss other issues

that must be linked with the effort to provide

for success (e.g markets for small diameter

wood)

Subtasks and Deliverables Complete Project Evaluation: October 2003

Contractor ECONorthwest with oversight from steering committee and CWCH

Costs: $7,954 (.75 FTE for staff for 1

mo plus expenses) plus $10,000 for economics contractors Task 9: Develop Policy Recommendations

Steering committee will use evaluation and

other information to develop

recommendations for changes in local, state

and federal policies and programs to better

support, build, and maintain local capacity to

help the rural poor address fire issues.

Subtasks and Deliverables Final Policy Recommendations:

November 2003

Steering committee with staff support from UO CWCH Costs: $7,954 (.75 FTE for staff for 1 month & expenses) Task 10: Develop Strategy to Close Service

Delivery Gaps and Provide Local Fire

Prevention Services to the Rural Poor

Regionwide Based on results of pilot

projects and policy recommendations,

develop strategy to provide coverage for

rural poor throughout the Northwest

Subtasks and Deliverables Develop Final Strategy: December 2003

Steering committee with staff support from CWCH.

Costs: $73954 (.75 FTE for staff for 1 month plus expenses).

Enclosure 3D - Project Budget

Cost Category

Description

Federal

Personnel

Fringe Benefits

Travel

Equipment

Subtotal

Supplies

Contractual

Other

Project (Program) Income 1

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