107 National Fire Plan Grant Proposal 3.15.2002

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: Center for Watershed and Community Health, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon       Phone: Best: 541-744-7072 FAX: Email: cwch@pdx.edu or      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       Phone: 541-744-7072 FAX: 541-744-6660 Email: cwch@pdx.edu or                  bdoppelt.f10@worldnet.att.net 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       Project Start: July 2002 Project End: This 18 month project will end December 31, 2003             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 wildlandurban 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, policy recommendation will be made to institute a comprehensive and integrated fire prevention service delivery system for the rural poor throughout andrisks Washington County: allOregon with high of fire and Project Location: Oregon       and Washington Congressional District: povery      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 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 of 3) - Project Narrative Description Applications for funding must include a narrative response that describes the proposal Please not submit responses longer than one page, single space, 12-pitch font Describe project including, but not limited to: Address these items • project location • project implementation as applicable: • 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 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 (and interested parties): A) detailing number of households served, acreage treated, the cost-efficiency of the project (expenditures spent on fireproofing 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: N/A       Response: Enclosure 3B (Page 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 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 E By reducing the risk of fire on private lands there is less risk of ecologically damaging fire on federal lands In addition, the development of locally-based non-profit fireproofing programs will provide additional resources to assist 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 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 of 3) - Project Evaluation Criteria 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 Spokane, Washington Association of Churches; Rural Fire Districts; others to be contacted 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 Tasks Time Frame 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) 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 Complete Committee Organization: July 2002 First meeting: July 2002 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 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 Responsible Party and Costs Per Unit 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) Subtasks and Deliverables Draft Report: September, 2002 Final Report: November, 2002 Subtasks and Deliverables Strategy Completed: December 31, 2002 CWCH with support from steering committee and associated agencies Costs: $26,513 (.5 FTE staff time for months plus expenses) CWCH with oversight from steering committee and mapping work done by GIS contractor (possibly UO students) Costs: $28,256 (.25 FTE staff time for months plus expenses plus GIS contractor) CWCH with support from steering committee and associated agencies Costs: None -covered under Task 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 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 Pilot Area Selection Completed: December 31, 2002 Outreach and Local Organizing: January-February 2003 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 fireproofing 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 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 the work, etc Discuss other issues that must be linked with the effort to provide for success (e.g markets for small diameter wood) 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 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 Complete Project Evaluation: October 2003 CWCH with direction from steering committee and local government/civic leaders, state and federal agencies Costs: $15,908 (.5 FTE for staff for months plus expenses) 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 months plus expenses and training contractors) UO CWCH working with local non-profit providers with oversight and direction from steering committee Costs: $55,678 plus (.75 FTE for staff for months plus expenses) plus $140,000 to nonprofits Contractor ECONorthwest with oversight from steering committee and CWCH Costs: $7,954 (.75 FTE for staff for mo plus expenses) plus $10,000 for economics contractors Subtasks and Deliverables Final Policy Recommendations: November 2003 Steering committee with staff support from UO CWCH Costs: $7,954 (.75 FTE for staff for month & expenses) Subtasks and Deliverables Develop Final Strategy: December 2003 Steering committee with staff support from CWCH Costs: $73954 (.75 FTE for staff for month plus expenses) Enclosure 3D - Project Budget Cost Category Description Federal Agency Personnel      Project Director @ 25 FTE Project Manager @ FTE      Student Employee (Administrative) $24,900 $66,000 $6,225 $16,500 $10,920 $31,125 $82,500 $10,920 Subtotal $90,900 $33,645 $124,545 $29,088 $10,766 $39,854 $29,088 $10,766 $39,854 $4,400 $1,100 $5,500 $4,400 $1,100 $5,500 $3,600 $2,400 $6,000 $900 $600 $1,500 $4,500 $3,000 $7,500 $12,000 $8,000 $70,000 $90,000 $3,000 $2,000 $10,000 $70,000 $85,000 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $140,000 $175,000 $2,400 $1,200 $7,200 $10,800 $600 $300 $1,800 $2,700 $3,000 $1,500 $9,000 $13,500 $231,188 $134,711 $365,899 Fringe Benefits      Employee Benefits @ 32%       Subtotal Travel      Staff and Ster Committee Committee       Subtotal Applicant Partner Partner Total Equipment             Subtotal Supplies Supplies and Materials      Copies/Materials      Subtotal Contractual      GIS Mapping      Training Contractors Economic Consultants Funds for Non-Profits@$35,000 Subtotal Other Meeting Space Rental      Mailing      Phone/Fax(Conf Calls, etc) Subtotal Total Costs Project (Program) Income1 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 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 Overview And Summary Despite the best intentions, existing wildfire-related policies and programs struggle to provide services to help the rural poor and distressed communities 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 Existing fire prevention programs find it difficult to identify and provide services to the rural poor because the population is hard to reach, often does not trust government, and in other ways often fall through the cracks in service delivery systems These problems exist, in large part, because there is no direct communication or coordinated service delivery planning between agencies working on land management/fire issues and those addressing rural poverty To address these issues, we propose to develop and implement a coordinated strategy to close service delivery gaps and build local capacity to help the rural poor execute plans to reduce the threat of wildfires on their households within the wildland-urban interface of the Pacific Northwest The project has the following components Task 1: Organize and Facilitate Operations of Regional Steering Committee A regional steering committee will be formed to coordinate strategic planning, education, training, and local capacity building efforts to help the rural poor address fire issues Participants from local, state and federal agencies, local civic leaders and others will be asked to sit on the committee The steering committee will oversee these tasks: • Identify overlaps, weak areas, and gaps in fire prevention services for the rural poor • Identify and map rural areas with high poverty concerns and risk of wildfire The USFS fire risk maps will be used as the starting point for this investigation We will contract with a GIS consultant to map these areas (possibly using graduate students at the University of Oregon); • Identify other issues to link with the focus on wildfires and rural poverty (e.g market development for utilization of small diameter wood); • Based on (a) and (b), develop consensus strategy for building local capacity to provide fire prevention services to the rural poor • Select 2-4 priority communities/regions where service gaps exist for pilot projects to build local capacity to provide fire prevention services to the rural poor; • Approve local non-profits capable and willing to develop fire-prevention programs; • Approve contractors and identify other resources available in pilot project areas that can assist with actual fuels reduction and fire prevention work; • Develop fire prevention training programs; • Oversee pilot projects; • Evaluate the success of the pilot projects; • Develop policy and program recommendations to close service delivery gaps regionwide; • Develop and oversee strategy to expand locally driven fire prevention services to the rural poor regionwide; • Other issues and tasks as identified by the committee Task 2: Complete Service Delivery Analysis Identify the types and locations of existing programs that provide assistance to the rural poor to fire proof their homes and communities Produce report outlining overlaps, limitations, weaknesses, and gaps in existing services Task 3: Map Priority 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 Task 4: Develop Consensus Draft Strategy Based on the assessment of the current service delivery system and the identification of priority high risk areas, the steering committee will develop a draft strategy to fill service gaps and provide comprehensive fire prevention services to the rural poor 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 1-2 in Washington) where the draft strategy developed by the steering committee will be executed to fill fire prevention service gaps Staff will meet with local civic leaders, government agencies, social service providers, and affected citizens to discuss the rural povertywildfire links and seek their support and involvement for a pilot project aimed at building local capacity to address the issues A local steering committee will be formed to ensure coordination and local support Local non-profits will be identified to operate the pilot project Task 6: Develop Training Program We will tap the expertise of local, state and federal fire agencies and programs such as FireSafe Spokane to educate and train the local pilot project providers (non-profits) in how to provide fire prevention services to the rural poor in their area Training program will include site identification, outreach methods, educational handouts, recordkeeping strategies, grant writing, fire plan development and execution etc Task 7: Conduct Month Pilot Projects in 2-4 priority regions Work with local group (non-profit) to help them hire and train employees from local area who will identify sites, complete outreach, produce fireproofing plans, complete on-site work, identify and secure needed resources, and monitor results Encourage hiring and training of low-income community members when possible Task 8: Evaluate the Pilot Projects Following the completion of the pilot projects, we will complete an assessment of their success for the steering committee, USFS Region 6, and other interested parties The assessment will detail: number of households served, acreage treated, , number of people hired to the work, the cost-efficiency of the project (expenditures spent on fire-proofing poor households vs other expenditures), efficacy of working through local non-profits etc The report will also outline other key issues that must be linked with the effort to provide for success (e.g markets for small diameter wood) Task 9: Develop Policy and Program Recommendations The steering committee will use evaluation and other information to develop recommendations for changes in local, state, and federal policies and programs to fill service delivery gaps to support, build, and maintain local capacity to help the rural poor address fire issues Task 10: Develop Strategy to Close Service Gaps and Provide Consistent, Comprehensive Fire Prevention Services to the Rural Poor Regionwide Based on results of pilot projects and policy recommendations, develop strategy to provide fire prevention services for the rural poor throughout the Northwest Outcomes: • A regional network of individuals and organizations working together to develop a coordinated strategy to provide comprehensive fire prevention services to the rural poor in Oregon and Washington • Increase interagency and intergovernmental coordination to address the linkages between wildfire and rural poverty • A credible system for identifying and mapping wildland-urban interface areas with high poverty concerns and risk of wildfire • Greatly expanded public awareness of the linkages between wildfire-rural poverty issues • The development of 2-4 pilot projects specifically focused on determining the most effective strategy to close service delivery gaps to ensure that the rural poor in each region is afforded fire prevention services • A majority of the homes and properties in the pilot project areas treated for fuel reductions and fireproofing • A formal assessment of their effectiveness of the pilot project strategy; • Recommendations for ways to close service delivery gaps and expand local efforts to provide fire prevention services to the rural poor regionwide  ... 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... 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... 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,