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.