2012-1760-Minutes for Meeting August 03,2012 Recorded 8/27/2012COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKDS CJ ~41Z-1160
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08/27/2012 8;41;43 AM
II II I) I~~~IIIII~IIII I ~II
2 1 - B0
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.or
MINUTES OF MEETING - FEMA GRANT PROGRAM
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DeArmond Room, Deschutes Services Building
FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 2012
Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Mark Pilliod,
County Counsel; Joe Studer and Ed Keith, County Foresters; and Katie Lighthall
of Project Wildfire.
Also present were John Jackson and Ken Fahlgren of Crook County; Nick Strader
of Representative Greg Walden's office; Susanna Julber of Senator Merkeley's
Office; and Wayne Kinney of Senator Ron Ryden's office.
By conference call, present were General Mike Caldwell, Deputy Director of State
Affairs, Oregon Military Department; Martin Plotner, Deputy Director, Office of
Emergency Management; and John Ketchum, Keno Fire Chief, representing
Klamath County.
Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 9:05 a.m.
The purpose of the meeting was to review and address issues with three FEMA
grants, and the FEMA grant program in general.
Joe Stutler explained that there have been ongoing issues with three FEMA grants.
The purpose of the meeting is to get support from the participating counties and
some understanding from the agencies, to work towards problem solving.
He provided copies of documents including a memo dated August 3, 2012, plus the
National Wildland Fire and Cohesive Strategy document. There have been a
number of administrative and legislative barriers that indicate change must happen
to implement the strategy much more efficiently. He hopes this is the correct path
forward.
Minutes of FEMA Meeting Friday, August 3, 2012
Page 1 of 8 Pages
He then referred to his memo and the historical prospective. (A copy is attached
for reference)
Erik Kropp asked how the 10:1 ratio for sweat equity work came about. Mr.
Stutler explained that the owners do the work, and put out the debris or take it to a
specified site. They review properties and found that on average there is about 10
cubic yards to each treated acre, whether pine or juniper. This generates about
100,000 yards per year. They cannot be there to monitor each and every property
owner while they do this work. It is not physically or economically possible.
Wayne Kinney with Senator Wyden's office asked why the fiscal branch of the
agency is objecting, when this does not seem to be a fiscal issue. Mr. Stutler stated
that they had a problem with the ratio. For two years documentation was
submitted under this protocol, and it was certified as the standard and well-tracked.
Under the environmental compliance part, they wanted three different
environmental assessments; but this money could be spent better elsewhere. They
are no closer to implementing the 20120 grant and it needs to be implemented this
federal fiscal year.
He added that this is such a hot potato for FEMA, Region 10 has to be approved by
Washington, DC. It is hard to deal with a bureaucracy, especially at two
administrative levels. He just wants to protect communities and create jobs.
Mark Pilliod asked if Region 10 questions the overall volume gathered through
sweat equity, and whether it is the ratio or the volume. Mr. Stuller replied that the
program side of FEMA feels the work was done well and that they overachieved.
The environmental side had a problem at first with the footprint, but are now okay
with this. The fiscal side does not seem to look at anything but the ratio.
Mr. Kinney asked if this was the first time this was used. It seems that the fiscal
office is rejecting the process that was approved by others at FEMA. Mr. Stutter
said yes, and evidently the rules don't fit. Mr. Stutter said the main support was
from OEM.
Commissioner Baney noted that this all still required reporting, which was
submitted, well-documented and accepted over a long time.
Minutes of FEMA Meeting Friday, August 3, 2012
Page 2 of 8 Pages
Mr. Studer said that this issue was addressed in December and things moved a bit,
but were still bogged down. To make this work, they need to do something
different to get a different outcome. The National Wildland and Cohesive Strategy
group was tasked to come up with a list of barriers and some immediate solutions.
The documents list 36. (He referred to the document at this time)
He said the main issue is working with an agency that has expertise and the ability
to deliver. It has been suggested that part of the grant be given to State of Federal
agencies with the appropriate expertise and NEPA authority; they could implement
the strategy. This idea has broad traction with the partnership council. The U.S.
Forest Service and Interior agencies have been contacted and both would take
these grants and move them; all that is needed now is FEMA's approval to do so.
This will help the County and this area avoid a system that is broken. It is
probably impossible to successfully deal with the FEMA system. It needs to be in
the hands of people who understand wildland fire issues.
He is seeking the agreement of the three counties who have the same target and
need these dollars, to use a different grant agent. Deschutes County is still the
principal county, working with Crook and Klamath, and the 2010 grant needs to
get moving. He suggested obligating the block grant to one of the federal
agencies. They have existing agreements of this kind and can move funding
around. It would be for just the 2010 grant, with the counties doing the work.
FEMA still needs to be accountable to close out the 2007 and 2008 grants.
Mr. Kinney stated this would be an easy one to push. However, they don't know
the ins and outs of transferring this over, or how fast it would move. He wants to
be sure the money gets here.
Mr. Studer asked General Caldwell if he had anything to add. General Caldwell
said they would continue to try to resolve the issues, as he feels the work done has
been outstanding. He is frustrated with FEMA and thought that the trip to
Washington DC to meet with them would help. Resources are short, though, and
there will soon be a new director of the OEM, Marty Plotner.
Mr. Plotner concurred. The OEM does not get compensated for administration.
He can't speak to the techniques and negotiations of the grants, but per the OEM,
performance ended in May 2007 and they have until the end of August this year to
submit the final documents. They are missing just the specific document relating
to owner/match contributions. His office drafted a letter than should go out soon to
FEMA. This should close and reconcile the 2007 grant.
Minutes of FEMA Meeting Friday, August 3, 2012
Page 3 of 8 Pages
Mr. Stutter asked what documentation is missing. Mr. Plotner said that they need
to capture the match, a cover sheet showing the time and hours contributed by the
property owners.
Mr. Stutter stated that the agreement was at the beginning, with 4,000 or more
property owners, it would be impossible to document each one. They agreed years
ago to the 10:1 ratio. People take the debris to the disposal sites and grinding is
done. They have no clue where it all came from. There is no way to know
whether someone did, for instance, 1.3 acres and four hours of work. They
generated over 80,000 cubic yards of debris in just one year.
Commissioner Baney added the goal was how much acreage. They are not able to
quantify how much came from each, but can quantify the amount of land that was
treated.
Mr. Stutter said that there were before and after aerial photos showing the
difference. The work was done on thousands of addresses.
General Caldwell stated that they took the photos, estimated the tonnage, and
submitted this with information on how many properties there were, and figured
out how much it takes to clear an acre of land. Mr. Plotner said that this is part of
the standstill. This would provide documentation showing the work was done.
Nick Strader of Representative Walden's office said he doesn't understand, this
was the same information they got six months ago. The concept was to work
outside the box, create dumping stations, etc. Now this is all being rehashed.
General Caldwell stated they should force them to approve or deny. There is
visual evidence and the work is innovative. They might need to go to the federal
delegation.
Mr. Stutter said that this is the first time the OEM requested this. Four years ago
the coalition was told they had overachieved. They reached an agreement on the
10:1 ratio and reported every quarter. FEMA's environmental and program
administrators said it was acceptable. He asked if the request for more
documentation is coming from the fiscal branch.
Mr. Plotner said fiscal, and to show them something that gives tangible evidence.
The issue is FEMA and the County are waiting for this. They should be able to
close out 2007, due the end of August.
Minutes of FEMA Meeting Friday, August 3, 2012
Page 4 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Baney said that there is still $78,000 owed to the County. There
were actually three site visits. So why are they left holding the bag after having
done more with less, and providing a lot of documentation. If everyone leaves this
room now, it will be the same thing. They need to call in the delegation to prop
this up. Another series of paper pushing may not help. She views the OEM as a
partner, but they need a new vehicle and need to move this forward.
Mr. Plotner said regarding 2007 to provide snapshots and totals so they can close it
out. General Caldwell noted that they were satisfied with the visual evidence and
site visits, and they more than met requirements.
Mr. Studer said that he sees the sides as not being in agreement. They have given
the maps to the OEM and FEMA, have had site visits and attended numerous
meetings. He can again send what has already been sent if it will help to make the
case.
Nick Strader asked if there was a lack of documentation or if the parties disagreed
regarding the 10:1 ratio. Mr. Studer stated that they all agreed eventually. They
have been moving forward on this premise all this time.
Mr. Plotner said that they are looking for documents to close out 2007. For 2008,
the performance period ends on September 20, 2012. The scope of work revision
has not yet been determined by FEMA for the out of scope work. He needs a
support statement regarding the environmental buckets, and a final determination
from Region 12 or national. This was the environmental part.
Commissioner Baney stated that this involved private property with sidewalks,
homes and roads; why is it missing the categorical exclusion piece? Regarding
NEPA, they have 54 documents guiding the work that was done. This all goes
towards the federal guidelines for categorical exclusion.
Mr. Plotner said that each grant and year under the current statute requires the
same process. He believes there is an easy position with the legislators. It was
submitted and they are waiting for a determination.
General Caldwell asked that since this involves private land, are they required to
do a NEPA. Mr. Stutler responded that since this uses federal funds, it requires
some level of NEPA be followed. NEPA was completed on the other lands.
Minutes of FEMA Meeting Friday, August 3, 2012
Page 5 of 8 Pages
FEMA has not given itself exclusions to make sense of low-risk work on the
ground. There were three environmental assessments for three counties, using
sweat equity for minor work. There would be a $300,000 bill if they had to use
contractor to do this, and they had it done for 1/10 of the cost. But FEMA is still
stuck on 2007 and 2008, and they can't move forward on 2010.
Commissioner Baney said that FEMA at their Washington, DC office offered
support for 2010 to protect communities. They said that it could go forward.
Mr. Kinney asked if the 2007 grant initially required individual monitoring. Mr.
Plotner said this started in 2008. Mr. Stutler added that they said they would
monitor this, but it became clear within a few months that it was not possible.
OEM agreed to the 10:1 ratio. FEMA environmental and program agreed as well,
for 2008 but not 2007, but fiscal has not.
Mr. Strader asked if they will release funds for 2010 if 2008 is not resolved. Mr.
Studer stated that the funds can be obligated and then they can get moving. It has
been two years. It can't be implemented as it has been in the past. It is not
possible to do this level of monitoring. The only way it will work is to use a block
grant through an agency with NEPA authority and wildland fire experience. If the
U.S. Forest Service were handling this, OEM would not have to be involved.
Commissioner Baney said she thought after the Washington, DC meeting that the
issue was resolved.
Susanne Julber of Senator Merkeley's office asked how this would be monitored.
Mr. Stutler said that the counties use sweat equity and overachieved. The pre-
disaster mitigation model used by FEMA has no way of recognizing
overachievement. You are penalized for doing better.
Commissioner Baney stated that you have to fit the work into buckets, and there is
no flexibility. They have done what was asked, covered the NEPA documents and
have been trying to protect communities. This needs a new direction.
Mr. Studer noted that they agree the counties did their due diligence to solve the
problem. They need to change the rules. There are two receptive agencies able to
do the work through a block grant. This needs to be obligated for this federal fiscal
year. If the three counties agree on this, it needs to be pursued.
Minutes of FEMA Meeting Friday, August 3, 2012
Page 6 of 8 Pages
General Caldwell agreed that this is not an OEM thing, forest grants. Mr. Plotner
said he would like to see forestry work on this instead. Thus far it has been an
exercise in futility. He will call Senator Wyden on Monday and insist on help.
The delegation is part of the team.
John Jackson of Crook County said that he has gone from excitement to do
something good for the communities to wondering if there is too much liability.
They have worked on this for three years.
Mr. Studer asked if he supports moving the block grant to another agency and
bypassing the OEM. General Caldwell noted that it is the smartest thing and
makes the most sense. The snapshots will be helpful and can be submitted for
2007. He will talk with them on the rest next week. He feels the USDA or the
USFS should be involved in the future.
Mr. Jackson said Crook County was okay with this change. Mr. Studer noted that
Deschutes County supports it. They should move forward with delegation support.
John Ketchum of Klamath County indicated he has to get permission for a change
like this. They want to understand the requirements and funding level. Mr. Studer
said he'd be in touch with the details. The 10:1 ratio won't be an issue for the USFS
or the BLM. They need to get the funds obligated quickly, and close out the others.
The conference call ended at this point.
Mr. Studer said that he has been working since March on one piece of paper; he
just got it from the OEM today and it is still wrong. FEMA in inconsistent and
unreasonable. The OEM does not use sweat equity or deal with wildland fire
issues. The only valid records are those provided by Deschutes County.
Mr. Jackson stated that they are arbitrarily holding 2010 hostage due to 2007 and
2008. Given the amount of time and the issues, FEMA should be embarrassed.
Ms. Julbert asked if there was an appeal packet given to FEMA. Commissioner
Baney said that they had a meeting with them in Washington DC and then another
meeting in February, but have nothing in writing from them.
Mr. Studer stated that they revised the scope of work for 2007 four times; three
times for 2008; and two or three times for 2010. The last 2010 update had an issue
with maps, but all of those were GIS based. There was a difference of 17 acres out
of thousands, but it was a big deal for FEMA.
Minutes of FEMA Meeting Friday, August 3, 2012
Page 7 of 8 Pages
They really have to do this through a block grant process with another agency. If
FEMA will agree to the block grant concept, the USFS will work with the
Department of Forestry and progress can be made. They can't make process with
FEMA. He just wants to see that the funds are obligated.
Mr. Kinney stated that they are being punished for doing more than what was
required. To approach the USFS and FEMA on this is appropriate.
Mr. Stutter said he will close the loop with Klamath County, set up a time to
outline who the contacts are at the Department of the Interior, and get the right
authorities involved to move funds. This agency has already agreed to take this on.
Mr. Kropp asked who the media should speak with. Commissioner Unger
suggested they speak to Mr. Stutter on behalf of the counties. The legislators will
handle their own media contacts.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned 10:30 a.m.
DATED this -Z -21 Day of hL4-~ 2012 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
Anthony DeBone, Chair
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
(Jboi~-IS2
Tammy Baney, Commissioner
Recording Secretary
Minutes of FEMA Meeting Friday, August 3, 2012
Page 8 of 8 Pages
Z
Z
0
t^
W
V1
W
J
a
v
a
m
E
co
v
a
N
-
r
O
N
'
M
C
~
00
Q
z
z
V
4^
W
V1
Q
W
a
UCo
00
bo
c
'o
I~
I
v
G
c
0
m
0
v
v
ro
v
IL
d
~e
m
m
.O
co
a~
a
m
rnZ)
ai
~6
~ .r
i
~Co
~Y
~10
3)
a(U
n=
Y
W V
a)
y
~Y
Y C
w 0
-7)
a~
C
_
((a
a
v
rOn
E
C
O C
O
41
0
a>
v
W
a) a>
Q.
Q O
O
A
~C
.N
v
CL
ch
o
C
E
:c
L C ~
=
co rd C O
Y
E Q Y
w
U
aD Q
M N C t
D
n
T
C
c
Y N 7,,
C
U E
O
ZN
V TmY
cv
U ~ O 4l rn
o
Y
v
_
'---c
nQ
Z
;a
Nmg
(A
~-a
V)nmELL
o
0
o
(nnG
0
3
m
C
ai
0
d
E
Y
Y
Q
LL U) Ca is
3
z
v
Y
v
~O
cn
^
c L
-D D
Q) ^
c
Y ~
c rn
3: 2L)
~ X
~4 0
Y of
W~
Q
M
Ad a
Y ~
Q
W E
7
0 N
CL
C? m .C
a
N C0 0
m v
v
N ~ C
0 N a,
O N D a
. -
ro C
E ? Q V c
u ~ L
i 7•
o
- Q1
a~+ C a) _
' 7 u7 t0 ~C Q
= m W V
Q 4J E2 -W W C
E c: 0
E* 2 ^a
c
~i° V VI~
~
.C N A N r_
3 } o ohs c
Q1 i- r
3 c N t f-
Vi [A W ti
C 3 4-
. c
v N t4 u C w
.L o L 7
y
O d d d V a N
a 'O r_n 4- d V o VI
o c} s s 3 m L
-C 0
CL L.
O d d Vi Lo x
7 W 0
4- :E c w o LWL VV) W ~ o t
t4 LA -0 V, r 4-
-C w
0 -0 T. o
W w
d d c
4- O 4- 0) L a a v'1
s `L- 7 0 C l[~ 4-
W
O V N •L V)
= ql L N N G O.t
d s } L } L
W U QO V) EL .u a 0
7 d N O~ d }
~Y L. 003 CL 0
}
0 en o} d O N
W L. L. a 4- _0
•V) W
V) s ° = d .3 vii 4-- d
} d d d _
3 ~ cs d 4-
0 3
V L.
C 4-
s C O 4- (A W O1
-p ' --Z, V~ 41
L LL
O co s
Q 01 p d N vi u vu1
LL } = L. t
Q
13 Ch w -0 w C -C
c 0 f- a= C c- o
o L.
ti 3
W -0 N
CL
W -p CL
q~ V) 13 CL O } 4-
O o s d rOi d o s
N
N
X
O1
D
V!
i
N
N
M
s
c
I
N
~
~p
N
A
~
LU
O
00
00
cc)
'
v
~
~
so
o
o
,
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 3, 2012
TO: Deschutes County BOCC; Crook County BOCC; Klamath County
BOCC; Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley; Congressman Greg
Walden; Mark Pilliod, Deschutes County Legal Counsel, Erik Kropp,
Interim Deschutes County Administrator; Ed Keith, Deschutes County
Forester
FROM: Joe Stutler, Deschutes County Forester, Retired
RE: FEMA/OEM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants for Deschutes, Crook and
Klamath Counties
The purpose of this memorandum is to clearly state the problems and offer a solution to the ongoing
issues with the three pre-disaster mitigation grants awarded the counties.
Historical perspective: See attached timeline for all details.
2007 Grant received for Deschutes and Crook counties - award amount $1.3 million. Counties
implemented for two years. 1,200 acre target, 3,627 acres actually treated. $171,620 residual value
and Deschutes County still owed $4,705 against grant.
2008 Grant received for Deschutes and Crook counties - award amount $1.1 million. Counties
implemented for one year. 2,000 acre target, 2,957 acres actually treated. $401,823 residual value and
Deschutes County still owed $75,987 against grant.
2010 Grant: Deschutes, Crook and Klamath counties notified of award of this third grant in May 2010.
11,141 acres proposed treatments in three counties with total value of $3,931,300. Grant awarded but
not received. FEMA and OEM will not proceed with the environmental assessment until the issues
with 2007 and 2008 grants are totally resolved and agreement is reached on how to monitor acres
treated under the 2010 grant.
Deschutes and Crook counties implemented the first two grants (2007 & 2008) for over two years,
until mid-September, 2010. The counties had two field reviews by OEM during this time period.
During the third field review (September 2010) the issue was raised by FEMA that Deschutes
County was working outside of the environmental footprints for both grants. The counties immediately
voluntarily stopped all work to resolve the issues. After 1 '/2 years of attempting to resolve the issues
with the first two grants, assistance was received by the Oregon congressional delegation which
brought all parties back together in January, 2012. This meeting resulted in the development of
environmental "buckets" by FEMA to illustrate work performed inside and outside FEMA's
environmental footprint. Since that January meeting, no decisions have been made by FEMA or OEM
to resolve these issues and award the 2010 grant.
August 3, 2012 current status:
• 2007 Grant: Revised Scope of Work completed (07 Scope of Work revised four times, frankly
because the standards kept changing), FEMA and OEM reviewed all financial records and
found $100 discrepancy that Oregon OEM will cover; FEMA Region 10 Financial Division is
still disputing the soft match calculation of 10 cubic yards equals 1 acre treated (a standard used
for two years during implementation). Still no resolution although both the program and
environmental divisions of FEMA Region 10 have cleared this grant but still without formal
documentation.
• 2008 Grant: Revised Scope of Work completed (revised three times, again with changing
standards); NO ACTION from OEM or FEMA other than the initial meeting in January to
establish environmental "buckets" which Deschutes County does not support as being the only
way to document environmental compliance. The soft match calculation metric will again be a
contentious issue with the financial division of FEMA. FEMA will claim based on the
environmental buckets that Deschutes County will owe approximately $100,000 for work
completed outside of the FEMA environmental footprint. Deschutes County did in fact work in
Jefferson County (within 3 miles of the Deschutes County boundary) and the amount spent for
the work and reimbursed under the grant is Deschutes County's mistake.
• 2010 Grant: Scope of Work revision resubmitted for the third time based on additional
requests from FEMA. The heart of the issue is FEMA wants a level of on-ground monitoring
for the Sweat Equity fuels treatments that is cost prohibitive. It is physically and financially
impractical for county staff to monitor every private landowner who chooses to contribute to
the program and FEMA is insisting this standard be in place, discarding the 10 cubic yard
equals 1 acre of treatment standard used for the other two grants. Additionally, Oregon OEM
has requested of FEMA to reopen the 2010 Grant allowing the agency to receive addition
monitoring and grant administration funding. Oregon OEM has stated that if that does not
occur, OEM will turn down the 2010 Grant, leaving the three counties without the opportunity
to implement the grant and this important fuels mitigation work.
Problem Statement: It is clear that neither Oregon OEM nor FEMA are adequately staffed with
qualified people to understand and implement wildland fire mitigation projects. It is also clear that the
FEMA model for mitigation of natural hazards does not fit with cost effective and efficient "on the
ground" wildland fuels treatment. Even with assistance from the congressional delegation last year to
bring the parties together to resolve the issues, the facts remain that a preponderance of process, federal
and state bureaucracy, and other work priorities have yielded little results other than additional paper
work.
Within FEMA there are at least three divisions (program, environmental and fiscal) that have not
consistently agreed on grant compliance/success for the last two years, thus creating a mountain of
bureaucracy and process. OEM has two people to administer all the grants in the State of Oregon, and
freely admit that they are understaffed and not qualified to administer a wildland fire mitigation grant.
Another compelling reason to solve this issue is unless the money for the 2010 grant can be positively
obligated to the counties during this federal fiscal year (September 30, 2012), there is a high likelihood
the money will be withdrawn.
Solution: During the past two years, a wide range of federal, state, local government, NGO's and
private citizen stakeholders have worked diligently to develop the National Wildland Fire Cohesive
Strategy, a requirement of the FLAME Act of 2009. One immediate observation during the
development of the three phases of the Cohesive Strategy was the removal of current administrative
and legal barriers which prevent or hamper the implementation of the three national goals of the
Cohesive Strategy which are:
• Create and maintain fire resilient landscapes;
• Create and maintain fire adapted communities; and
• Integrate wildland fire response based on sound risk management.
A specific outcome revealed during the creation of Phase II and III was the recognition of the
administrative barriers with FEMA pre-disaster mitigation grants and lack of technical expertise to
administer and implement the grants.
The solution to these issues is for FEMA to provide block grants to federal and state agencies that have
the technical expertise, grants management and skills to provide wildland fuels mitigation on private
lands to expedite the implementation of the Cohesive Strategy.
Specifically Deschutes, Crook and Klamath counties are requesting the following from the
congressional delegation:
1. Request FEMA to obligate the dollars for the 2010 grant utilizing existing agreements with
either the Forest Service or Interior Agencies i.e. BLM. Transfer the full grant amount to those
agencies with wildland fuels experience and authority to complete NEPA, and have them
administer the grant. Targets for accomplishment will remain the same. This effort
demonstrates an immediate success opportunity for implementing the Cohesive Strategy and
over the course of the grant period will create or maintain at least 85 jobs in the counties.
2. Request FEMA to officially close out the grants from 2007 and 2008 and reimburse Deschutes
County the outstanding amounts owed.
3. The counties are requesting these actions be completed before the federal fiscal year ends on
September 30, 2012.
Joe Studer
Deschutes County Forester, retired
Attachment
Deschutes/Crook County
FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Timeline
August 1990-Awbrey Hall Fire, destroyed 37 homes and burned over 3,000 acres along and inside
the City of Bend. Awareness of the wildland fire issues came to the forefront of agencies and the
public.
August 1996-Skeleton Fire burned 19 homes and burned approximately 18,000 just east of Bend and
from those two landmark fires the FireFree Program was created in 1997.
1999-Based on the availability of a Project Impact Grant available from FEMA, a Project Impact
Committee was formed in Deschutes County to carry on the efforts with FireFree.
November 1, 1999-Deschutes County was one of 200 communities identified in the US to receive a
Project Impact Grant for defensible space, implement the FireFree Program and provide other wildland
fire mitigation.
2001-Project Impact name change to Project Wildfire, followed by a county ordinance officially
creating the organization.
October 2005-Deschutes County first became aware of FEMA pre-disaster mitigation grant
opportunities.
December 2005-Deschutes County attended a two day training session on completion of the grant
application hosted by OR OEM.
January 2006-Deschutes County/ Crook Counties complete respective all-hazard plans with wildland
fire being the number one priority for activities.
January 2006-Deschutes/Crook Counties submitted an application for pre-disaster mitigation grant;
since there was not a model to complete the Benefit Costs Analysis (BCA) for wildland fire mitigation,
Deschutes County hired a contractor to assist with developing an acceptable model and BCA ratio for
the grant application.
May 2006-Counties notified were not successful with the grant application and encouraged to re-
apply.
November 2007-The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program opens.
February 2007-Deschutes/Crook Counties submitted an application for pre-disaster mitigation grant
for $1.3 million for both counties which would treat 1,200 acres and provide approximately $258,000
of soft match through sweat equity or property owner contributions, 2007 PDM.
May 2007-Deschutes County received confirmation that grant application was successful and would
be contacted further for information on completing the environmental assessment (EA) with a FEMA
Contractor and the intergovernmental agreement between the county and OR OEM.
November 2007-Deschutes/Crook Counties met with FEMA contractor (URS Corporation) to discuss
the application, environmental concerns, issues and project scope. The Counties were asked for
numerous GIS products, previous environmental assessment efforts, cultural information, riparian and
other wetlands inventory data, Community Fire Plans and T&E species information.
December 2007-Deschutes/Crook counties submitted an application for pre-disaster mitigation grant;
this would be the third application and for the amount of $1.1 million and for which 1,000 acres would
be treated and $390,000 of soft match.
January 2008-Draft EA was shared to both counties for comment (along with the public) and both
counties provided comments to the draft, frankly the draft was generic in scope and counties asked for
corrections where obvious errors.
March 2008-Final EA was completed and posted in both counties for public comment.
May 2008--Counties received word that were again successful with the pre-disaster mitigation
application and the same process as before would be followed, 2008 PDM.
April 2008 tbru May 2008-comments from the '07 EA were reviewed, the Finding of No Significant
Impact and Decision Memo from FEMA was completed.
June-July 2008---Intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between Deschutes County and OR OEM were
completed, along with an IGA between Deschutes and Crook Counties.
August 2008---Counties began work on the '07 grant.
October-December 2008-----1St quarterly report was submitted to OEM for accomplishments for both
counties.
November 2008-Counties began working with FEMA contractor (URS Corporation) on '08 Grant,
with one face to face meeting on completing the EA process. Counties discuss the application,
environmental concerns, issues and project scope. The Counties were asked for numerous GIS
products, previous Environmental Analysis efforts, cultural information, riparian and other wetlands
inventory data, Community Fire Plans and T&E species information.
January-December 2009-Counties reported quarterly (4) on accomplishments for '07 Grant.
Jan-July 2009-- Comments from the '08 EA were reviewed, the Finding of No Significant Impact and
Decision Memo from FEMA was completed, along with IGA with OR OEM and Crook County.
July 2009-Field visit from OEM to review counties work and address reimbursement turnaround
times.
July 2009-Deschutes County reports 1,200 acre exceeded on '07 Grant from both counties.
September 2009-Counties began work on '08 Grant.
December 2009-Deschutes/Crook/Klamath Counties submitted a pre-disaster mitigation grant
application for $3 million, 3,000 acres treatment and approximately $1 million of soft match for all
three counties.
January-December 2009-Counties complete quarterly reports for both '07 and '08 grants.
January-May 2010-Counties continue work on both grants.
May 2010-Field visit for both counties and both grants from OEM.
May 2010-Counties notified that was again successful with the pre-disaster mitigation grant
application and we would follow the same process as before, 2010 PDM.
June 2010-While completing the quarterly report, County Forester noticed that Deschutes
County has erroneously reported accomplishments from all grant activities in Deschutes County,
including FEMA grants. At that point, the acres and soft match were recalculated to the correct
acre and soft match totals for the '07 and '08 grants and submitted.
January-December 2010-Counties complete quarterly reports for both '07 and '08 grants.
July 2010-Counties notified by FEMA contractor (URS Corporation) to begin the EA work with '10
grant, initially were asked to send in GIS shape files for the project areas and were subsequently never
contacted again.
September 2010-Field visit by OEM and FEMA, after the visit Deschutes/Crook Counties were
informed by FEMA representative that since acres and soft match had been far exceeded the grant
totals, FEMA wanted to deem both grants complete and recover the remaining grant values.
Discussions at the time occurred about the possibility of a scope of work revision for both grants and
there was agreement to do so.
For the '07 grant from September 2008 thru April 2010, the counties submitted five
reimbursement requests for $655,551.37 and were reimbursed for our work.
For the '08 grant from April 2010 thru August 2011, the counties submitted five reimbursement
requests for $471,212.43 and were reimbursed for our work.
October 2010-Letter from Deschutes County formally requesting Scope of Work revisions for both
grants, requests went to OEM to FEMA R-10.
December 2010-Deschutes County received a "stop-work-order" for both grants.
December 2010Deschutes County sends OEM and F.CMA all federal NEPA completed for the
project areas for both grants. Additionally Deschutes County specifically identified all Forest Practices
Act applications for the same project areas.
January 2011-Meeting with FEMA R-10, OEM-OR and Deschutes/Crook Counties in Salem to
discuss Scope of Work and environmental footprint. At this meeting counties met with the
environmental compliance and grant performance personnel from FEMA, provided a revised Scope of
Work, reviewed all other NEPA completed by both other federal agencies and state agencies and
provided maps of all.
January 2011-Deschutes/Crook revised Scopes of Work to FEMA/OEM for both grants; additionally
revised the 2010 Grant application, and because FEMA had a "new" policy for wildland fire
management for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants, counties also amended the '08 and '10 grants to be
in compliance with this requirement.
February 2011-After the meeting with FEMA and OEM, revised the scopes of work again for the
07', `08' and 2010 grants.
March 2011-OEM forwards letter to FEMA requesting scope of work changes.
April 2011-FEMA again sends letter requesting Scope of Work changes for '07-'08 grants with new
specifics.
May 2011-OEM request an extension for '07 grant and that extension is agreed to by FEMA.
May 2011-FEMA sends a letter stating that Deschutes County had worked out of the environmental
footprint and "suggesting" that the County must either re-pay the money or have that amount deducted
from the forthcoming 2010 grant.
July 2011-Deschutes County appeals the financial liability letter from FEMA and offers a solution;
there is $715,000 remaining grant value, $328,000 (Deschutes County figures) liability, call Grants 07'
and 08' "mitigation provided", utilize the remaining grant value for 08' Grant to accomplish new
work, complete EA for 2010 Grant Scope of Work and to include any new work areas in 08' and move
forward.
August 2011-OEM-OR letter to FEMA requesting consideration of work completed as good and
mitigation complete.
September 2011-FEMA R-10 decision letter to "re-coup" funding.
October 2011-FEMA R-10 letter to OEM-OR on their "decision."
November 2011--OEM-OR letter to Deschutes County regarding FEMA's letter.
November 2011-Conference call with Deschutes, Crook, OEM, General Caldwell and Congressional
Delegation to develop a path forward.
November 2011-Letter from Deschutes County to OEM, stating we appeal the decision.
December 2011-Letter from Deschutes County to OEM stating reasons we appeal the decision.
January 2012-Commissioner Baney, County Forester Joe Stutler met with FEMA Headquarters Staff
to present the issues and reach a resolution. This meeting did result in a subsequent meeting in Salem
with OEM and FEMA Region 10 Staff, which produced environmental buckets (1-8); some follow up
by FEMA and OEM to attempt to resolve the issues with both grants and move forward with the 2010
grant.
~
sit
C u 0
S
~ n
~
~
8 ~
O
n a
M
o
c
3 wm
m
s
3
'A Casq
~~w
wm
cm~c°D U
~
E c $ wn
~gC~W.~~K
•
5 a
9
m`
131ol
~g
~
i8lagi
Wm~~~
98mm
Eo
ppS~ E
~
~
_
aau~~
~ W [J ~
5
c
w
v VwC
~ C/ M m .S
~p,~
toll
a iidd ~
r O W fV
m3
E .ate ~
I.E.,
4 fV ~ Q ~'1 6 V
N
a~~.:•
S $
~mP C
ii ~ N n
~ as
JJI
er N a W 4
C~ 7
~.1R
ma
4
Y"' C fV 71
~ m
o
~y ~ C 1~Cp0 9~9 @@
-p
WQ u
`
p = m
[g
8 8.
m
~ a
S
@6 p~
SIiB
.
~
wig
s
~
~
x
~
g3 8c7
~
~eS
~w
m n
a~
S 1,E
a~B
a
gall 1
PS
3gJE
~
z Hsoa
~a
W
ms
K m
*gig
its 11 2
g
ISI,Z
m E $ a ~ ~
c a m
A q
ri
m
~
g 5
€ MI
E
.
m
till
8
m
~
°m
9
d
o
F~
~ •a°ffis~~~
r rd8~ma
a
n
$
8
n
s
~d
~
@~
8~
g~
s
s~s°
°',S
~
o
8.~
mpg
}
sq
cc
g~
w
w
li H
1 A
A
n
m
p
$
E
loll
f$$~ t gpt~~goy
m
y~
yy
~
~
~g2
ego
5
C
_
x
x
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
K
r
N
[7
v
h
w
n
m
T
gq pp
o
v
_
-
f
a ~
p
ig
W
w
41
W
w
g
d
t~ b~
~
v g
C LL
Cm
O
~
C C
8
$
a
6w
. i~.
'
~
a
v
u~,,
$
E
11, fr
-
GGO
gg
$
m~
rg
r^
g~~ W
.E
c
,
a g m~$ g
0
W'~g
5
a s
~ ~ a
~
@
m
gg
y
CC ~
( 6
W
r W [J 9 m
~
T
~1
Eg
S
8
&
aMm
g
v
$
v
F
'E
~ O
M
aya
W
O
m LL
o
W
~
$
V
g
6 V
z2g
rS
Its
y
p
~ m .
9
g
O gp
@ 8 g y~
gmpa~.
4 S K C 3
a LL s
im
'maag~e
'.vim
m
e
,
s
$
ay8
Its
v
o~o
p
EL c
W S~ ~
LL w
T
W m
LL
$ m~
0
_U
.@
~C N
W
CWC
O
W
C
mmm
c G
w
G
C
1~
a
m~
a
~
~
@
#
~
l
~
a
p`scWE
W $
D -3
9
me
,
E
.E
$
W
n_
$
S
'
1
E~
5
U9
n
E
$
@5
~
g
g5r~~
I
Scg
Ii
~v
9~9
~
gffi
z
63
@
z
~
Tea
XW
z
z
sa
~
z
.5
a
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
V
N
Y
9
N
N
N
N
lo -
1
/ c C
53 15 g-
s Ss IWa mA r Eq $
f
p ~~g a-
516 E'F 'R 12 5
o~ 1.2
1'2 H. ~twy .~q mmI
q~ W n Cqq ~ m
FL
dq $ Cy 9a$~m LLS 0 ~.'Y A w 3@a
=m0~0 SaWE~iLL m~9 -TT ggos~ E66$ffi.-o
g
r= Sm
a H `
ILA
~ Cq q
E0
D g g N C
'Pw ~a2r71 c~.Ec ,Q~
Emv~j'gLLNiE,Sd ~$E ac33~
m S A v H18 i1H nut
s s
ta~
8 gL` s A-
Oil 11191
2 - 4
as~
egg
i ;;IE
a 5qry T°ffi°
Mai
a~{V$
q5~ Wc.~ ~E aw o
22 j
E -E&
m q - $
21
X
X X X X X
X X X X
Qp X X
N ~ N M ~