HomeMy WebLinkAboutShepherd WMP Post Hearing Materialsg
a 1 C e
February 16, 2015
Deschutes County Community Development Department
P.O. Box 6005
Bend, OR 97708
ATTN: Will Groves
r
Re: Shepherd WMP Application
File Nos. 247 -14 -000 -401 -MC
Dear Mr. Groves:
On behalf of my client, John Shepherd, this letter serves as a response to Paul Dewey's letter of February
9, 2015. Please enter it into the record.
Mr. Dewey asserts that the proposed application must be denied because there has been no:change in
circumstances allowing for a modification, as required by DCC 22.36.040. This issue is addressed in,both
the staff"approval and by the applicant at the hearing. As explained, the change in ownership of the
property, coupled with the need to clarify a poorly written and ambiguous (which Mr. Dewey
acknoWledged at the hearing) wildlife management plan is sufficient to constitute a change in
circumstances authorizing the modification request.
Regarding the conditions of approval in the staff approval, Mr. Dewey argues, with nota single shred of
evidence, that the Shepherds will ignore the approval conditions. As we demonstrated at the hearing,
however, the conditions of approval in the staff approval are both measurable and are required to be
verified by both ODFW and the County. The current WMP has no such requirement.
Moreover, Mr. Dewey claims that the Shepherds are not following the existing WMP. That's not true —
the Shepherds are following the existing WMP, as best as it can be followed. The problem is that the
existing WMP is ambiguous and lacks clear standards. Clarifying those standards is the purpose of this
WMP modification application.
Mr. Dewey also complains that the conditions of approval in the staff approval are unenforceable. Not
true. On the contrary, the new conditions of approval call for active enforcement by both the county
and ODFW, which is one of the reasons why county staff, ODFW, and the applicant's wildlife biologist all
agree that the new plan is a vast improvement over the existing plan.
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 230637 • Tigard, OR 97281-0637
Street Address: 11735 S. W. Queen Elizabeth Street, Suite 101 • King City, OR 97224
(503) 620-0258 • FAX (503) 639-6891 • website: www.oia.org
Finally, Mr. Dewey argues that the "additional specifics and maps" submitted by Mr. Shepherd in his
January 30 letter should be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Without them, Mr. Dewey
claims they will be ignored by the Shepherds. We certainly have no objection to that request, although
it is.tiresome to hear Mr. Dewey continue to assert that the Shepherds have ignored or will ignore any
requirements of the existing WMP or the new -WMR: , In,my_ many years practicing land use jaw, I've
grown accustomed to claims by the various "land use watchdog" groups that applicants have some type
of improper motivation for wishing to use their pro.perty;<anjdiarerjustwaitingaorflout,the.Iaw at any •
opportunity, but I continue to hold out hope thatagain,st all,odds I will have a,case in the future_where
opponentarguments are based on the facts;and,applicable criteria;, not wild assertions and tiame calling.
Vey Tpgly Yours,
Day' J. Hufinicutt
Attorn.eyfor Applicant
February 9, 2015
Deschutes County Commissioners
Tony Debone
Tammy Banney
Alan Unger
Dear Commissioners,
My husband and I attended the BOCC meeting last Monday, February 2nd, 2015,
concerning John and Stephanie Shepherd and a Wildlife Management Plan.
We have lived on Lower Bridge for 20 years and we are very close neighbors with
the Shepherds.
It is becoming more and more difficult to "survive" in the ranching and farming
industry, and owning a large piece of property (like the Shepherd's) in Deschutes
County. More and more regulations are making it almost impossible to financially
survive out in the country.
Some large acreages, like the Shepherd's property, is low value farm land and the
land owners need to diversify to make it work. The Shepherd's plan to have
weddings on their land is a very suitable activity for private property in this remote
area.
On our ranch we have several hundred acres of hay ground and while working our
land day in and day out, you can see that the deer tend to graze on the pastures and
then go bed down in the trees and brush. An occasional "snack" on the lawn at John
and Stephanie's would be an added treat for the deer that bed down in their wooded
area.
Weddings on the Shepherds property is a perfect fit for our Deer Wintering Range,
because the weddings mostly taking place in the Spring and Summer months will
not affect the deer while they are down out of the mountains in the Winter. During
the Summer the majority of the deer move back up to the mountain range. Because
of the absence of deer in the Summer, the wedding traffic up the Shepherd's
driveway, should be no concern of disrupting the deer.
John and Stephanie's plan is much better for the land and the deer, than grazing it
for 9 months, like in the original Wildlife Plan.
[ am completely in favor of the Shepherd's plans and look forward to weddings next
door. John and Stephanie Shepherd are upstanding people and I only wish and pray
for more people like them. We couldn't ask for better neighbors.
[ ask you all to support John and Stephanie Shepherd's plans.
Thank you For
y
r time,
Kathy Simpson
71330 NW Lower Bridge Way,
Terrebonne, OR 97760
February 9, 2015
Deschutes County Commissioners
Tony Debone
Tammy Banney
Alan Unger
Dear Commissioners,
Living in the area, near John and Stephanie Shepherd's property, I know quite well
that the uses that they have used it for is a plus. I can't think of a better use for the
Shepherd's property, it is very unproductive ground unless you want to use it for a
large rock pit.
Also in regards to the opposition I heard speak while attending the BOCC meeting
Jan 2nd, saying to water the newly planted grasses. You cannot do that because this
property does not have water rights in the areas discussed. Also I would be
opposed to tilling up any of that range ground because you would bring up the
dormant weed seeds, which there are thousands of weed seeds in our High Desert
ground. I have worked with wildlife most of my life and the opposition was
complaining about the tree and plant barriers. In my opinion the deer do not care
about barriers other than rubbing there antlers or eating it. The 20,000 juniper
trees on the property are all the barrier that is needed. In the Winter you will have
the deer laying in the yard and eating the lawn, giving them a variety in food, grasses
and browsing. These deer will move out in April and head up to the high country,
because this is their wintering area.
I would very much support the Sheperd's in the use of their property and events.
These events will give them revenue to support their low -value farm ground.
The County should also support this and the County Commissioners should also
support the Shepherd's plan.
Thank you,
/2)
Steve Simpson
71330 NW Lower Bridge Way
Terrebonne, OR 97760
Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law
RECEIVED
SY:
1539 NW Vicksburg
*RR 406110701
(541) 420-8455
DEL it tti It .net
February 9, 2015
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
c/o Will Groves
Deschutes County Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Shepherd Wildlife Management Plan Application; 247 -14 -000401 -MC
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch to provide comments following the hearing
on February 2.
As an initial matter, it is clear that this proposal is being made to benefit another application,
namely the Shepherds' private park application. The timing of this "modification" of the
wildlife management plan is not coincidental.
Piecemealing decisions on the use of a property is not an efficient use of County resources,
particularly considering that the County Board has gone out of its way to grant special favors to
the Shepherds (call-ups of hearings to the Board to avoid hearings officer costs and to expedite
decisions). Ironically, Mr. Shepherd argued at the hearing that it was not "equitable" that his
proposed wildlife management plan is (allegedly) better than others' wildlife plans. In my two
plus decades of county land use practice I have never seen someone who has so blatantly and
repeatedly violated the County Code be rewarded to the tune of thousands of dollars in avoided
application costs. That is not "equitable" to the rest of the community.
On its merits, this proposed modification application cannot be sustained where the reasons for a
modification (a poorly written original wildlife management plan and new ownership) do not
constitute a "change in circumstances."
As for the revised wildlife management plan, there is no reason for the County to adopt a "well
it's better than the other wildlife plan" as the standard of review here. The proposed wildlife
plan still lacks important details necessary for it to be enforceable and effective. As long as the
County Board is donating thousands of dollars to the Shepherds, it would be equitable to require
them to at least fund the ODFW monitoring that County staff has designated ODFW to do in the
conditions of approval. In checking with ODFW after the hearing, I learned that it does not, in
fact, have funding to monitor compliance with these conditions of approval.
And what happens when the Shepherds don't comply with the conditions of approval? Mr.
Hunnicutt has argued in his private park application that the conditions of approval associated
with a farm dwelling are not enforceable after the dwelling gets a building permit. He
mockingly raises the question of whether the County would require the dwelling to be torn down.
So why are we going through this exercise of adopting a new wildlife management plan that is as
likely to be followed as the last one and where the applicant has declared it does not need to
comply with such conditions of approval associated with this farm dwelling? Well, the applicant
needs yet another land use approval from the County, this time for a private park. Conditions of
approval will be agreed with until what is sought to be done gets done.
And how is the County going to enforce these conditions of approval in the future? if a County
Board wants to enforce the wildlife management plan because it realizes that not to do so
undermines the Code and public trust in the County, what is there to enforce? How will the
smallest 90% of existing juniper trees to be cut be actually measured when there is no
documentation of what is there now? How will improved forage be enforced where all that is
required is just a couple of "seedings," with no requirement that any forage actually result? How
will the requirement that the vegetative buffer around the structures be maintained at all times be
enforced without a clear description of what is to be maintained'?
Clarity of the conditions is critical. 'Though the old plan's condition #8 states, "There will be
very little road usage on the property due to the type of farming operation present there," Mr.
Hunnicutt argued that that is not a condition and is too unclear to be enforceable. Mr. Hunnicutt
also argued at the hearing that there was no prohibition against the limbing of junipers as the
Shepherds have done along the driveway, though the CU -0065 decision approving the original
wildlife management plan explicitly stated that the ODFW recommendations were necessary and
"made conditions of approval." See the Staff Findings at page 9 which quote from the CU -0065
decision. As reported on page 8 of the Staff Findings, ODFW had clearly said, "Pruning of
juniper would not be allowed."
Accordingly, if the County Board is going to accept as accurate the additional specifics and maps
on the new wildlife management plan in the January 30 materials presented at the hearing, then
they should be clearly and explicitly incorporated into the conditions of approval. Otherwise,
they will be ignored and dismissed as "simply a statement by the applicant" (see page 4 of the
January 30 letter by applicant claiming that statements by the previous applicant in her wildlife
management plan were not enforceable). If such representations are not considered by the
Shepherds to be enforceable, why should their representations in the January 30 letter be
enforceable unless the County Board clearly make them so?
Thank you for your consideration. Please inform us in writing as to any decision on this matter.
Very truly yours.
Paul Dewey
January 30, 2015
Deschutes County Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
ATTN: Will Groves
Vie: Shepherd Wildlife Management Plan Modification
File No. 247 -14 -000401 -MC
Dear Mr. Groves:
This letter serves as my response to the issues raised by Central Oregon Landwatch (Landwatch) in their
appeal of the staff's approval of my application for modification of the original Wildlife Management
Plan (WMP) on my property located at 71120 Holmes Road in Deschutes County. Please enter this letter
into the record.
Landwatch raises five issues in their appeal. I will respond to each issue in order:
1. Landwatch questions whether condition #3 of the staff approved modified WMP requires
something more or less than what is required under the current WMP. Condition #3 requires
me to maintain a vegetative buffer around the existing house to provide visual screening and
forage opportunities for deer. The buffer must consist of various trees, including Junipers and
Aspen, as well as shrubs, garden, and lawn, and to replace any vegetation in-kind should it die.
The existing WMP, approved as part of the Woods application (CU -00-65), called for a buffer
zone of mixed trees including Aspens, Birch, Ponderosa Pine, Maples and Dogwoods, along with
middle sized shrubs. In addition, the WMP called for planting a plot of pine trees around 300
feet from the dwelling.
To date, we have planted a large lawn to provide forage for wildlife, including wintering deer,
approximately 50 Aspens, and 23 Ponderosa Pine trees, all within 300 feet of the dwelling. In
addition, we have planted a Targe flowered area (approximately 60' x100'), along with native
grasses on approximately 1.6 acres.
Condition #3 is an improvement on the existing WMP in that it not only requires us to create a
buffer, but also to maintain it, and replace dead vegetation with like -kind vegetation. The
existing WMP does not contain this requirement, meaning the modified WMP creates an
additional burden upon us.
2. Landwatch asserts that the modified WMP should specify (in Condition #4) the location of the
property upon which juniper shall be thinned , rather than deferring that decision until 30 days
after the final decision on the application. Landwatch further claims that the modified WMP will
not preserve the cover necessary for deer. Finally, Landwatch asserts that the terms "scab rock
flats" and "rock scrabble areas" are undefined and so it is unclear to know where they are
located and how many acres have already been thinned under the existing WMP.
The existing WMP calls for "cutting the many small juniper trees to promote the natural growth
of sage brush, bitter brush, and bunch grasses." The existing WMP prohibits general thinning of
juniper, and only allows removal of juniper less than 10 years old.
To date, we have removed young juniper from approximately 10 acres of our property, as
shown on the attached map. We have also planted native grasses, including sage brush, lupen,
meadow salsify and others on approximately 6000 square feet. However, after meeting onsite
with our biologist, Ray Romero, and with Corey Heath, Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist for
ODFW, it was determined that wildlife would better benefit by removing a greater number of
junipers from a larger portion of the property, leaving the largest junipers in each location for
cover, piling the downed junipers into brush pile for rodent and bird habitat, and planting each
area with native vegetation to provide additional forage for deer and other wildlife. As per
ODFW's recommendation, this is a great improvement.
The existing WMP requires thinning of juniper trees, but does not require replanting the thinned
areas with native vegetation, and contains no requirement on the amount of acreage to be
thinned and no requirement that the removed junipers be hand piled into brush piles for the
benefit of smaller wildlife. The modified WMP contains those requirements, and specifies that
at least 25 acres of our property be thinned and replanted. Our plant selection includes, but is
not limited to: bitterbrush, Idaho Fescue, Bluebunch wheatgrass, and lupine. (See page 5 of
attached Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board grant schedule). Again, as per ODFW's
recommendation, this is a great improvement.
Furthermore, the existing WMP did not require that we obtain approval from either the County
or ODFW before removing juniper. The modified WMP contains a requirement that we provide
the County with a map showing the areas which will be thinned, with each area at least 1 acre in
size, and that we obtain ODFW approval prior to thinning. These requirements shall be
completed no later than June 15, 2015. Again, as per ODFW's recommendation, this is a great
improvement.
The requirements of the modified WMP are a vast improvement over the existing WMP. Under
the existing WMP, we are only required to remove some small juniper. How much and in what
location is completely up to us. Under the modified WMP, we are required to thin at least 25
acres of small juniper in areas which must be approved by both the County and ODFW, and
which we must complete within a short period after approval of the application. In addition, we
are required to replant those areas with native grasses, and create brush piles for smaller
wildlife. Finally, we are required to schedule a site visit with the County and ODFW to ensure
that we have satisfied the thinning and reseeding requirements. The result is a much more
specific and comprehensive set of requirements that eliminate the ambiguity of the existing
WMP and add additional benefits for wildlife.
Although the modified WMP does not require us to immediately specify the locations of areas
which we propose to thin, attached is a map showing the areas we will initially propose, which
are the areas which we walked with Corey Heath and Ray Romero during their site visit to our
property. According to the modified WMP, before final approval, the specific scab rock areas to
be rehabilitated must be approved by ODFW.
3. Landwatch argues that Conditions #7 and #8 of the modified WMP, which require us to reseed
the areas where we have thinned juniper with native vegetation, do not require that the
reseeding has "taken hold" and provided the additional forage. Conditions #7 and #8 of the
modified WMP require us to reseed thinned areas by June 15, 2017, and request a site visit by
the County and ODFW to ensure that the reseeding was completed. In addition, if ODFW does
not believe the reseeding was successful, they can require additional application of seed.
Given that the existing WMP does not require any reseeding of thinned areas at all, these
conditions are an improvement over the existing WMP. They might not be as great as
Landwatch wants, but they are certainly an improvement, particularly since the final call on
whether the reseeding has been successful lies with the ODFW.
In addition, we have been working with Jan Roofener of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement
Board, who has given up preliminary approval of a small grant application for our property,
including $1,000 for seeds and plants for the areas to be reseeded. A copy of the grant
schedulel is attached (see page 5). We have also purchased 3.5 acres of water rights to create
pasture and for additional areas of our lawn, both of which would be available to deer.
4. Landwatch claims that the existing WMP requires limitations on livestock grazing. The condition
of the existing WMP which Landwatch refers to is Condition #6, in which the applicant (Woods)
agreed to take the cattle to "another grazing area" on the property during the fail and winter
months. Unfortunately, there is no description of which "grazing area" the cattle would occupy
during the remainder of the year, nor which "grazing area" the cattle would be moved to by
Woods. This is especially difficult when considering the map which the applicant (Woods)
submitted to the County, and which was incorporated by the County in the approval of Woods
r
application. That map (a copy of which is attached) shows that all of the property is labeled as
"grazing area". Thus, Condition #6 is both exceedingly ambiguous and ineffective, as it does not
appear to require Woods (or us) to do anything. Therefore, we have built a barbed wire feed lot
pen of approximately X acre near the barn where the cattle will be secured and fed during
winter months (see attached map).
Furthermore, we were concerned that the original plan could allow the property to be
overgrazed. Therefore, we are willing to limit the duration of grazing on areas above the rim
rock to ensure that those areas are not overgrazed. We propose a limitation on cattle grazing
above the rim rock of no more than 4 weeks during each year, to occur during summer months
when it will not interfere with the deer winter range use. The cattle will be secured for the
rmajority of the summer months to the new pasture area (approximately 10 acres) below the rim
rock on the east border of our property (see map). Using this area for grazing will protect the
remaining 206 acres from overgrazing, including the areas we propose to reseed, should they be
accepted by ODFW and the County. Since the existing plan does not require this protection, it is
another improvement.
In addition, the existing WMP indicates that Woods will graze at least 25 cattle on the subject
property. We plan to only graze approximately 10 cattle on the subject property, to balance the
county requirement that we farm the property with the county requirement that we protect
wildlife. For protection of wildlife, this is an improvement over the existing WMP.
5. Finally, Landwatch claims that the modified WMP must contain a Condition limiting vehicular
use on the property. The existing WMP does provide that there will be little road usage on the
subject property, but does not tie that into the benefit to wildlife. Moreover, the existing WMP
does not require that there be little road usage (instead, there is simply a statement by the
applicant (Woods) that that will be the case), and does not attempt to define what road usage is
considered "little ". Contrary to what Landwatch claims, there is nothing in the existing WMP
which imposes any requirement that human activities will be limited.
By contrast, if somehow the County could infer standards from the existing WMP as to what
constitutes "little" road usage, the modified WMP will ensure that the road usage will meet that
standard. The existing WMP calls for cattle to use the entire property. This will result in road
usage on existing roads in the property as part of the cattle operation. By contrast, as discussed
above, we will severely limit grazing above the rimrock. Rather, the vast majority of our cattle
operation will occur below the rimrock and in the barn area adjacent to our dwelling (but not
within the area for our proposed private park). Thus, except for the Saturday
afternoons/evenings during the summer (Le. not during the fall/winter/early spring when the
mule deer winter range is critical) when we hope to use a small portion of our property as a
private park, there will be less road usage than under the existing WMP.
I believe this addresses each of the appeal concerns raised by Landwatch, and hope that the Board
upholds the staff decision and rejects the Landwatch appeal.
Sincerely,
i;
John Shepherd
OWEB
SMALL GRANT
PROGRAM
APPLICATION
2013-2015
(for applications to be submitted
otter July 1, 2014)
Application Processing Information (to be
completed by the Small Grant Team Contact)
Application #: 19-14-005
Date Received:
Date Acted On: _
Recommended _ Denied
SGT Contact
Signature:
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
OWEB Funds Requested $8160 Total Project Cost $ 11277
Round to nearest dollar Round to nearest dollar
Name of Project (five words or fewer) Shepherd Erosion Reduction Project
Project Location (if more than one, include location/landowner information on each map.)
This project occurs at (check one): x A single site Multiple sites
Deschutes River Deschutes T14S, R11E, Sec 10
Watershed(s) County or counties Township, Range, Section(s)
(e.g., TIN, RSE, S12)
Longitude, Latitude (e.g., -123.789, 45.6/3)
(Required for federal/state reporting)
17070301
Subbasin(s) — Please note she l0 -digit hydrological unit code,
previously 5'h Field RUC
River or Creek Name (f applicable) River Mile (rf applicable)
1. Have you previously submitted an application to OWEB, either through the regular or small grant program, for this
project, or one similar to it on the same property? _ Yes Grant # x No
If yes, explain
2. Does this application propose a grant for a property in which OWEB previously invested funds for purchase of fee title
or a conservation easement; or is OWEB currently considering an acquisition grant for this property?
Yes Grant # x No
if yes, explain
II. CONTACT INFORMATION
Applicant Org.: Deschutes Soil & Water Conservation Contact: Tarruny Harty
District
Mailing Address: 625 SE Salmon Ave., Redmond, OR
Zip: 97756
Phone: 541-815-0203 J Email: tammyharty@msn.com
Landowner(s): John Shepherd
Landowner Address: 71120 Holmes Road, Sisters, Oregon
Zip: 97759
Phone: 541.
Email:
Project Manager for the Grantee: Jan Roofener
Project Manager Address: 625 SE Salmon Ave., Redmond, OR
Email: janroofener@bendbroadband.com
Zip: 97756
Phone: 541-815-8377
Fiscal Agent Org.: Deschutes SWCD
Contact: Tammy Harty
Fiscal Agent Address: 625 SE Salmon Ave., Redmond, OR
Zip: 97756
Phone: 541-923-2204
Email: tammyharty@rnsn.com
Technical Contact: Jan Roofener
Phone: 541-815-8377
Email: janroofener@bendbroadband.com
ICI. PROJECT INFORMATION
2013-2015 Small Grant Application, Revised MAY 2014
1
Priority Watershed Concern: the project will address—Check One Only:
lnstream Process & Function
Wetland Process & Function
Fish Passage
Riparian Process & Function Urban Impact Reduction
Road Impact Reduction xx Upland Process & Function
Water Quantity & Quality/ Irrigation Efficiency
Small Grant Team Priority Project Type(s) addressed by the project (see application instructions):
Vegetation management. upland process and function, erosion and invasive species manag ment, wildlife habitat
restoration
1-a. Is the project consistent with the local watershed assessment or action plan?
x Yes Name primary assessment/plan Upper Deschutes Assessment and Action Plan
No
N/A—The watershed does not yet have an assessment or action plan
1-b. Is the project consistent with the local Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan?
x Yes No
1-c. Is the project consistent with any developed plan for the property (e.g., local conservation or stewardship
plans, etc.)? x Yes No
If yes, name the plan(s): ODFW/Deschutes County Wildlife Habitat Plan
2. Describe the current watershed PROBLEM(s) you are seeking to address.
The Deschutes River is water quality limited on DEQ"s 303d list for temperature and other parameters of toxic substances that
would limit beneficial use of summer steeihead fish. Juniper encroachment due to lack of wildfire in Central Oregon is a significant
problem. The phase 11 juniper stand is estimated at 200 trees to the acre and dominates the plant community on this site. Soil
organic matter has declined and raindrops if not intercepted by the juniper crown impact the ground promoting physical crusting, so
precipitation does not infiltrate the soil. This site is best described as mid -late phase II; a period of transition when biotic and, in
many cases abiotipconditions worsen and the Focus of treatment options changes from prevention to restoration and repair. The
landowner is very interested in planting native vegetation such as bitterbrush and bunch grass seeding per reLpmmendationns from
Oregon Department of Forestery. At this time no noxious weeds were observed, and the landowner successfully cleared juniper on
10+ acres of his 216 acre property.
3. Describe the SOLUTION(s) you are proposing to address the current problem(s). attach a site map, color
photo(s), and (if applicable) preliminary project drawings or designs
The project proposes to cut 30 acres of stage 11 iuniper, stack the large trees in piles and burn or haul off for firewood: although the
smaller limbs and litter from the trees should be left as ground cover and shade protection for the soil to encourage the native plant
species to return. Results from this project are: soil will become permeable, young Juniper trees will be eliminated , reduced wiltire
fuels. restore the grassland ecological site for water quality and wildlife habitat. ibis OWEB Small Grant project is included in the
plan to marinate natural resources in a partner ship with Oregon Department of Wildlife. Deschutes Co SWCD, Deschutes
County Phanning and the landowner. Attached; recent plan for wildlife habitat submitted to Deschutes Co Planning .for this
property.
2013-2015 Small Grant Application, Revised MAY 2014 2
Project Budget (Word)—Itemize projected costs for each of the following "Expense Categories" that apply to
your project. A minimum of 25% match—cost share—in-kind/cash (column 4) is required. See application
instructions and additional team conditions for further guidance.
PLEASE NOTE: Budgets may he submitted in either Word or ExcelJform on website) formats.
http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/GRANTS/smerant forms.shtml
to the nearest dollar, please do not include cents.
Expense Category
No. of
Units
Unit
Cost
(Includes time
Cost Share
In -Kind/
Cash
(Match)
devoted to
OWEB
Funds
Description—what will be purchased or done
and who will provide the item/perform the work
SALARIES, WAGES AND BENEFITS
taxes are paid)
this project only by applicant employees for whom payroll
Deschutes SWCD
Technician
8 hrs
$30
$240
$
Reconnaissance, photos and research
Deschutes SWCD Tech
16 hrs
SO
$0
$480
Project process, site visits for progress reports
SUBTOTAL (1)
SO
labor, establishing
SO
plants,
CONTRACTED SERVICES (Work crews, volunteer
equipment operation, etc )
Mechanical Brush
Treatment
30
acres
$186/ac
SO
55580
Mechanical Large Woody Brush Management,
Medium Infestation
Hand tools brush treatment
30
acres
$78/ac
52340
50
Leave small piles for bird nesting, lopping small
trees
Broadcast seeding x2
40
hours
512
480
Hand seed using a harrow or rake and broadcast
seed
SUBTOTAL (2)
50
SO
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES (See
fencing, piip
$0
s, gravel, logs,
SO
plants, etc)
Native Seed
Lump
Sum
$1000
Seed mix to include bitterbrush, Idaho Fescue,
Bluebunch wheatgrass, and lupine seed in late
fall or early spring (non toxic to livestock)
SUBTOTAL (3)
SO
50
TRAVEL (For current rates
grants regardless of funding
go to: http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/Paees/forms linked.aspx# Forms and Guidance used for all
date -Travel Rates
Site visits by SWCD
104 mi
5.55
S57
50
4 site visits for pro: ss r Ain,
$
SO
50
SUBTOTAL
(4)
50
casts, small equipment
SO
repair
commercial equipment rental)
OTHER (Land use signature costs, projectpenuit
Land Use Review by Co
$50
SO
550
OWER requirement
S
$0
$0
—
SUBTOTAL (5)
SO
SO
PROJECT SUBTOTAL (Add Subtotals 1-5)
SO
SO
GRANT ADMIN. Not to exceed
Budget Categories Definitions
Indicate which billing method
15% of Project Subtotal. Compute by multiplying by 0-15 or less. See the January 2014
at httatliwww.Oregon.gtly/OWEB/fornrs/2014-01hudget category defs.odf for eligible costs.
will be used for this grant by checking
one appropriate
$850
box.
File maintenance for reporting purposes to
OWEB
xx direct cost billing
20 hrs
$45
$0
ILI direct cost allocation
$
$0
SO
• indirect costs (if checked,
$
$0
$0
attach copy of Federal Indirect
Cost Negotiation Agreement)
POST -GRANT - -
YEAR -2 STATUS/POST IMPLEMENTATION
REPORT (optional)
50
S200
(Not to exceed 5200)
PLANT ESTABLISHMENT(optional)
$0
50
(Not to exceed $1,000)
PROJECT TOTALS
$3117
58160
(Not to exceed 510,000 in OWEB funds)
2013-2015 Small Grant Application, Revised MAY 2014
5
I
r
4 Lr
• r
.� + .,-*,� i+ ._•�• »J:' e
•
rifs," -DIY
Ilk Ne• ` T
Vr - •
• w ay' i • C
• •
A-• c --.
V
.00
. *- • •:.•• ,c-•
r_.
• s *ry vti ,.
• • J* t �s
4A.
rr`
h" 41- "at its-r,'� .1{, •
.'•.''"i.' s.moi. r•-'24'6
."" h• •i " Ata d_ .4‘
�L
s •. y moi} At I *
✓ �W *F„:c.iI1�1 arra a. �L M
or4 w °''•i
• ,� 'w- • J. �• .-•t ••
1• +' t 4 11. 'J". .i.. , .•115,• Ry , H
gi.
61
t of
'R _A - - 4 y, akar 44r, . �4
• �'_•: an'a.'%.. aaA
* II- t.0 • t.
I .' *•- R y
6 { x� t • c '. s i r / Y . A, �i►. • 4 F ]��r c q » �..
44, r •'N 'rr ,,4; _ ,
at 1 r •��.11��,,,YY 4yk yp
µIJ ,;�*▪ Mw'rra- r ~ • �* S • ,• • • .4 +• . oat `•�
606
, 'AC • f• .1. \ ' "'. �+ .e• 'l1 b• .-. K Pr• a It 4. J 4. 4 + . ' • 06
e, . 4* ice'
•
_ ",'" iC 1- ;44. Ji Y. ' • • t , r , 4i , a f• 4 ,«, ..
4.+ m*ti..::nnta-' • .. • AV.4t.• 3�Tg E3 ,4 a. 1R . T•r i
1Ff a• . r'•-L,•h* _••,. y gm►••'S• • �p•7irts • :•'''.
•
+t e 6 0ti •ie k •, a w tl. , r e •x' .• 4 ......y•,9- 4 _ t i; ,
gi
} ;0.4'6:*. #•ty$ • X a -
• ••t • « t • 0 •• „II. t + t� 1 t .}I • 1. 1 •w� 44. i
Ca- - •r' . . S" _ ■ •' -1....-t,4:4 (•' �.. ii .1. t... salt Nom. nCp v
' r'�"i -e 1E'•`"` '„riga' ,, -144 v 1.- rr1,. t Ar
W1
q iMb �y� 4.704,,,..„."-•.'.
„. -•.'. v • I�:•.• t C 4%.• * k %. *4'.
ae r r• ♦�4I.t.` s•-.'ts .�t j
•� t
.MC
.Ili' . [ ry ii ` AIN tv � r.
•fr F
•
± e4 - 44•
i •
1.
w C!
r.1'� 4 r.4 r4' •'i•S;
514,
• .,a•. •. ••• Z
", rw • •I Ia-.
+. .•t ¢rCa t4.4 • 4 r k'1' ., 4 t.1
▪ • •,• " . • ' 1 .'04%. •. it; fa.,:.'"':t •y `1iY•• . - t ,•.
•
N
4-
9