2 Enclosure 3D - Project Summary Form NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE PROJECTS Application for Fuels Utilization and Marketing Projects Applicant GREATER APPLEGATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Applicant/Organization: Phone: 541- 846-9411 FAX: Chair Ellen Levine, Type of Applicant: (enter appropriate letter in box) L. Nonprofit Organization Email: elevine@joimail.com Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip): P. O. Box 3107 Applegate, Oregon 97530 Project Coordinator Project Coordinator (Name and Title): Bjorn Everson, Project Coordinator Organization/Jurisdiction: GACDC, Project Coordination Phone: FAX: Email: 541-899-8413 541-899-8413 everson@jeffnet.org Project Information Project Title: Applegate Small Diameter Processing Facility Proposed Project Start Date: Proposed Project End Date: Spring 2005 Spring, 2007 Federal Funding Request: Total Project Funding: $134,400 $178,650 Are you submitting multiple projects? If so, please explain and prioritize: sole application Brief Project Summary: Who, What, Where, Desired Outcomes in relation to NFP Goals and Community Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plans (This should summarize page 2). The GACDC Mission to encourage rural socio-economic opportunities prompts our Proposal, by: Facilities & equipment to process SDM coming from an Ashland RA BLM Stewardship project; Data collection and Feasibility Study of all aspects of the economics of this enterprise; Partnering with other businesses & organizations with like interests and similar goals; Maintaining and developing an increased capacity for local fuels reduction workers; Corollary support for research in SDM markets & product s, and workforce training. Landscape scale Greater Applegate Valley application; broad range of stakeholders. Project Location: County: Federal Congressional District: T39S R2W multiple Sections Jackson 2nd Congressional Name of Federal, State or Tribal contact with whom you coordinated this proposal: Telephone number of Contact: Paul Galloway, Rural Community Assistance Coordinator, RRNF (541) 560-3404 (541) 840-0094 Enclosure 3D (Page 1 of 3) - Project Narrative Description Applications for funding must include a narrative response that describes the proposal. Please do not submit responses longer than one page, single space, 12-pitch font. Describe project including, but not limited to: Geographic scope of project Address these Is the project linked to a plan? items as Project time frames and partners applicable: Specify types of activities and equipment used Anticipated outcomes and measures of success How will the project results be reported? Special skills or expertise needed to complete the work For this project, explain the level of cooperation, coordination or strategic planning, through a “Local Coordination Group.” If you haven’t worked with a local coordination group, why not? Response: LCG Participation The Greater Applegate Community Development Corporation has been in direct communication with principal players in the Local Coordination Group Advisory Meetings from the inception of this project. Information & suggestions have been shared and incorporated consistently with BLM RA Manager, Stewardship Contract, USFS Rural Community Assistance Coordinator, SW RC & D, & other LCG Advisory Meeting members, to design a supportive ‘missing link’ to NFP projects and others with interest in fuels reduction. Specific clarification for process of this Proposal is in notes. Geographic Scope & Plan Many Missions are met by this proposal throughout the landscape-scale responsibilities: 1) The GACDC economic enhancement & tracking for the Applegate Valley; 2) the Applegate Fire Plan (Sec. I Landscape Perspective, Sec.III Strategies); 3) BLM local fuels-reduction capacity development; 4) Jackson/ Josephine Joint County Local Coordination Group Joint Resolution objectives are addressed; and 5) less formal plans connect local fuels reduction contractors through unanimous support for this project and the resultant feasibility study. Timeframe & Partners Start work anticipated in Spring 2005 will dovetail with NFP-SW RC & D market studies and contractor site establishment. Winter 2006-7 completes feasibility study and final reports. GACDC, Ashland RA BLM, USFS RCA, 2-B F are the primary partners in this proposal. Activities & Equipment The Processing Facility and some processing machinery (peeler-bandsawplaner) will be leased for 18-24 months; supports one FTE augmenting 3 fuels-extraction workers (workforce trainees), performing value-added manufacture from SDM raw product coming from BLM Stewardship contract. Loader, chipper, other equipment and wages matched by contractor 2-B Forests. Several small diameter contractors provide milling needs. Roundtables will offer additional activity options. Outcomes & Measures We’re on the cutting edge again in the Applegate AMA, where outcomes are tested continually. Several dedicated products matching the huge volumes of available material are the best resultant outcome, connecting market studies with product manufacture. Full economic disclosure guarantees knowledge of how to proceed over time. A significant anticipated outcome is a “landscape scale” capacity enhancement as BLM seeks to extend the stewardship process pending successful economics. It will generate agency-driven fire hazard management strategies as the economics become clear to contractors. Reporting GACDC will include a Feasibility Study incorporating BLM Stewardship Contract economics for extraction costs with the Final Report prepared by Project Coordinator. Feedback generated from partners and Roundtables reported and incorporated where possible. Two professional accountants (GACDC & contractor) track and report all economics. The high quality of the economic analysis from this project is a primary benefit to all partners. Skills & Expertise Each partner brings unique skills and special expertise necessary to this project. NFP, USFS RCA, & BLM regional views provide overarching ‘template’ requirements & mandates. GACDC, SW RC&D, SOWAC, Joint LCG implement local interpretation of needs through clear process. Contractor & Project Coordinator with long fuels/crew experience direct these into groundwork. Enclosure 3D (Page 2 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. 1. Increasing Economic Utilization of Woody Material Removed in Fuels Management and Forest Restoration Activities (50 Points) A. Will biomass or forest fuels be utilized? If so, in what manner and how much? B. Will the project improve the local economy in terms of jobs and sustainable economic activity? C. How many jobs are expected to be created or retained, and for how long? D. Are any private businesses involved in this project? If so, what are their roles? E. Can this project be offered to serve as a model to other communities or businesses? If so, why and how will the model be conveyed or made available? F. If the project involves new product development, what evidence is there for appropriate markets and end-users? G. How will the project be sustained or carried forward beyond the project timelines? Will it depend on public funding sources? Response: Operational Structure 1. Warehousing: GACDC to provide 18 mos. Production Facility (PF) for inventory storage; 2BF commits delivery of all inventory to PF, retains ownership; community has well documented economic analysis as primary product. 2. Product Development: GACDC will contract with 2BF to sort material by parameters developed from partner consultations, will pay 2BF by unit measure, and will make available to any other interested party the Feasibility Study from detailed 2BF product information regarding type & quantity of inventory, harvest costs, and projections for future inventory available based on sample materials. 3. Processing: 2-B Forests shall process and market all inventory at their cost & profit; GACDC will facilitate availability and provide all marketing research results to 2BF. A. 15% of total product removed from the Stewardship Contract will be fuels. Firewood appears to have a stable market, volume determine economics; hog fuel will be used as fiber of last resort for co-generation. B. Viable markets will decrease fuels reduction costs, providing connection between local contractors and residents to ensure increased protection to our unique rural lifestyle. C. The facility is expected to require from 2-12 local family-level wage jobs, averaging 5, and will augment incomes for ‘full-time’ fuels reduction people to increase local capacity for fuels reduction work & workers D. 2 B Forests is the contractor for the BLM Ashland RA Stewardship Contract for fiber removal, from small logs to chips & firewood. 2 B Forests will be contracted by GACDC to explore, develop, and manufacture variable high-end products from these materials. This contractor was selected in part from a desire to make this process transparent in every detail, releasing proprietary interests and tracking all costs. A Project Coordinator contracted by GACDC will oversee the project. E. All compiled information will be available through GACDC as public domain. Reasonable costs are allowed for limited public printings. All partners and participants will use the Study in decision making; applicant expertise in public forums with two Roundtables, # 2 & 3, encourages shared participation by multiple stakeholders, providing objective information and shared experience history. F. New markets are actively being sought, information shared, (see consultants). SW RC&D Marketing Study will provide consistent & timely feedback. ‘ Highest-end use’ is tested to create the highest number of local jobs. Some current markets exist for the larger diameters, and evidence for product value accumulates daily as contractor establishes market connections. The quality of the fiber appears to be established for a broad range of manufacturers; connecting this intrinsic value to specific products is the intent of this proposal. G. Our intent is a self-sustained business supported by profits derived through creative markets and good product research. The production facility must be designed to be fluid enough to meet changing market demands and not be dependent upon future public funding, except as part of agency fuels reduction management throughout the Applegate. Enclosure 3D (Page 3 of 3) - Project Evaluation Criteria A. B. C. D. E. 2. Expanding community participation and collaboration. (30 points) Identify the partners and community members involved in planning and implementing the project. Describe the extent of local support for this project. How much cost-sharing is there for the project? Who are these partners and what are the arrangements? What are the direct community benefits that will result from this project? How will you use multi-party monitoring to improve this and future projects? A. The following are planning partners GACDC USFS RCA Medford BLM SW RC & D information from market studies is especially valuable to this proposal. Response: 2 B Forests. B. Professional support (Applegate Fire Plan, Fire District #9, ODF), and local contractors surveyed are unanimous in support for this project; all are interested in these results. No opposition has been found. C. Over 25% cost-sharing by various partners and contractor. Machinery use/rental & mileage from contractor; lease preceding funding to establish site. All substantial contractor development costs will be reported in the Feasibility Study. D. 1) Progress toward sustainable rural economics 2) Agency-driven template for significant large-scale fuels reduction 3) Increased community participation capacity, broad base support for similar processes 4) In-place local high-capacity fuels contractors E. Multi-party monitoring is designed in with Roundtables, Final Report reflecting all partner inputs & Perspectives, reasons suggestions were chosen or not, and partner field & fiscal review. perspectives. 3. Taking Advantage of Existing Networks, previously-funded projects and knowledge. (20 Points) A. B. Describe how the proposed project takes advantage of relevant, existing networks and previously-funded projects. Describe who and what were consulted to ensure the best information available was used in designing this project proposal. Response: A) The GACDC has a seven-year history of grant administration as a 501(c)3 community organization. Currently working with Jackson County Parks to administer Cantrall-Buckley Park, & a Regional Economic Development grant tied to agriculture and cottage industry in the Applegate Valley. Other administration: 1) Contracted by the Applegate Partnership to provide social monitoring for the Applegate Fire Plan; 2) 1999 $934000 Oregon Community Foundation; 3) Acquired real estate to ensure public river access; 4) Service contracts with US Forest Service, Applegate Partnership; 5) Fiscal agent for other local non-profit organizations; 6) Previous NFP-funded Applegate landowner-based fuel-reduction projects increase public & woods-professional savvy & interest in SD solutions; B. SW RC & D Amy Wilson directed us to RRNF Rural Community Assistance Coordinator Paul Galloway for preview. Suggestions for clarity and content from multiple professional sources have been incorporated. Training networks LCG networks Applegate Fire Plan, Sandy Shaffer Firewise, Matt Epstein Applegate Partnership, Jack Shipley Applegate River Watershed Council Applegate fuels reduction contractors {‘Out of the Woods, Joe Schattler; Tommy Maddox Milling; Chris Bratt Milling; Eagle Pass Reforestation} SW RC & D Market Research Jack Leroy Green Mt. Woodworks, Mark Stella Rogue Valley Fuels, Allen Surgeon Murphy Veneer, John Beck Southcoast Lumber Kaufman Wood Products Weyerhaeuser Burns Lumber REACH Juniper Mill, Toby Loetscher Medford Molding BLM Ashland RA Manager, Rich Drehobl Cascade Wood Products Others Enclosure 3D - Project Work Form Tasks Time Frame Roundtable #1 Spring 2004 Outreach to small contractors Facility Lease Project Coordination 2004-2006 Summer 2004- 2006 Spring 2004- 2006 Equipment Set-up Fall 2004-2005 Bandsaw rental Planer lease Chipper, loader Responsible Party Separate Match Funding, GACDC GACDC GACDC, contractor GACDC GACDC, 2-B Forests Sorting, raw materials June 2004 –2006 2-B Forests Facility Operation Summer/Fall 2004-2006 2-B Forests Product Development & Sales August 2004 through 2006 2-B Forests Firewood processing & sales 2004-2006 2-B Forests Liaison, Marketing Research Winter 2004-2006 2-B Forests Roundtable #2- Status Report Spring/Summer 2005 GACDC Roundtable, 3rd Annual Tours, Production Facility & Field Summer 2006 GACDC, contractor Monitoring, Fiscal & Field Inspection and Review 2005 through Final Report Partners, GACDC Data Review Summer 2006 GACDC Final Reports to Partners Spring/Fall 2006 GACDC Enclosure 3D - Project Budget Cost Category Description Federal Agency Personnel Applicant Partner 1 GACDC 2-B Forests Partner 2 Total Subtotal Fringe Benefits Subtotal Travel Subtotal Equipment Rental-Manufacturing Rental-Product Development Subtotal 23000 10000 10000 23000 33000 Supplies Feasibility Study Utilities Supplies Subtotal 3200 4000 4000 11200 Facility Lease Project Coordination Sorting Product Development Subtotal 18000 8000 46500 26000 98500 1250 1250 12450 Contractual 6000 13000 19000 117500 Other Oversight Roundtable Monitoring & Outreach Fiscal Administration Subtotal Total Costs Project (Program) Income1 1 2000 2700 10000 14700 1000 $134400 $1000 1000 15700 $43250 $178650 3000 (see “A”) 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.