ID Number 2007-99
Utilization and Marketing Projects Application
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE AND WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE PROJECTS
Applicant
Applicant/Organization:
Peter Griessmann /Stevens County Conservation District
Type of Applicant:
G (Unknown)
Email:
pgriessmann@co.stevens.wa.us
Phone:
509-685-0937 Ext. 118
FAX:
509-684-1982
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Please Call Ahead for FAX:
Off
Address (Street or P. O. Box, City, State, Zip):
232 Williams Lake Rd. Colville, WA 99114
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator (Name and Title):
Mr. Peter Griessmann, Natural Resource Manager
Organization/Jurisdiction:
Stevens County Conservation District
Email:
pgriessmann@co.stevens.wa.us
Phone:
509-685-0937 Ext. 118
FAX:
509-684-1982
Project Information
Project Title:
Woody Biomass Collection Network
Project Location:
Chewelah Washington
County:
Stevens
Congressional District:
5
Latitude:
48.287586
Longitude:
117.77539
State the desired outcome in relation to NFP Goals and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Project Objectives:
-Demonstrate an innovative way of collecting and processing slash and sub-merchantable biomass into utilizable material. -Reduce on-site burning of slash
piles and sub-merchantable material. -Provide incentives to remove forest fuels through marketability of previously sub-merchantable material by allowing
for centralized collection of woody biomass -Collect and process needed harvest/transportation time motion data for future program development and site
applications. -Encourage entrepreneurial investment in slash disposal systems by demonstrating and engaging the private sector. -Build a permanent network
of County-wide biomass collection yards through this demonstrational project. -Increase economicl use of woody biomass by consolidating harvested
materials and selling the aggregated supply at the highest market value. -Save the federal government, industry and private landowners fuels reduction costs.
-Reduce particulate emissions through biomass capture.
Name of CWPP:
Chewelah Wildfire Protection Plan
Name of Communit(y/ies) at Risk:
Chewelah
Proposed Project Start Date:
10/02/2006
Proposed Project End Date:
11/02/2007
Federal Funding Request:
$87,500.00
Total Project Cost:
$118,450.00
Are you submitting multiple projects?
Yes
If YES indicate the relationship of the projects to one
another:
A (Stand Alone)
If YES, please list the titles of projects by priority and briefly explain their relationship.
A submitted -Waitts Lake -Red Marble Fuels Reduction project - will help integrate a woody biomass removal compontent to this project. Rather than piling
and burning slash on-site we propose collecting the slash generated from the Red Marble Fuels Reduction project and integrating it into the Woody Biomass
Collection Network.
Name of Federal, State or Tribal contact with whom you coordinated this Organization/Jurisdiction:
proposal:
1) Steve Rawlings
Phone
USFS Colville National Forest
509-684-7222
Email srawlings@fs.fed.us
2) Sen. Cathy McMorris c/o Shelly Short
US Senator District 5
Phone
Email
509-684-3481
3)
Phone
Email
Project Planning Information
Name of Local Coordinating Group:
Stevens County Fire Plan Coordinating Group
For this project, explain the level of cooperation, coordination or strategic planning, through a "Local Coordination Group." If you have not worked with a
local coordination group, why not?
County group-wide planning/coordinating sessions.Coord. Group listening and prioritizing sessions.
List federal lands that are adjacent to the project and proximity.
USFS
Will this project utilize fuels from an adjacent current fuel reduction project on federal lands or to one that is planned within the next three years?
Yes
Please indicate planned treatments and associated acres:
Treatment
Thinning
Acres
1100
Treatment
Thinning
Acres
0
Treatment
Thinning
Acres
0
Treatment
Thinning
Acres
0
Treatment
Acres
0
If you have a treatment type other than standard types above:
Treatment
Fuels Reduction
Acres
1100
Project Evaluation Criteria
Applications for funding must include narrative responses that address the following criteria. Be sure you address every one briefly, yet thoroughly.
1. Increasing utilization, management and economic impacts of woody material removed in fuels management and forest restoration
activities (60 points)
A. Will biomass, thinnings or other surplus forest fuels be utilized? If so, in what manner and how much? How many acres will be treated? Are any of these
acres within the wildland-urban interface? If so, how many? (20 points)
Response:
Yes- A demonstration area has been identified as meeting the requirements for demonstrating slash utilization. Slash and other woody biomass material from
landing residues will be loaded into roll off containers which will be transported to a centrally located processing yard for chipping or on-site chipping will
be done if enough congregated slash volume is generated or collected. Demonstration sites are in SPA 6 and Waitts Lake of the Chewelah CWPP. Identified
treatment area of: 1100 acres FS sale and 500+ acres private fuels treatement acres. We anticipate a conservative volume of 7500 green tons of slash will be
removed through this initial demonstration program. All of the treatement areas are within the Chewelah CWPP and the Wildland Urban Interface. We are
looking to include additional adjacent private land holdings to capture additional slash and further reducing on-site pile and burn tonnage.
B. Will the project improve the local economy in terms of jobs and sustainable economic activity? If so, how many and what type of jobs will be created or
retained (i.e., wage-scale, full-time equivalent), and for how long? What percent of the jobs are expected to be filled from the local labor force? (10 points)
Response:
This project will be looked to as the "catalyst" for how slash and other woody biomss is handled. We believe that local entrepreneurs will identify the value
of this system and apply its framework. A strong interest is already being expressed in this model by local operators. We believe a local investor/operator
will fill the job creation niche created through this demonstration effort.
C. Are there private businesses involved in this project? If so, what are their roles and investment? How will the project be structured to minimize or
eliminate te perception of use of public funding to create an unfair competitive advantage for those private businesses involved? (10 points)
Response:
Yes- Private buisinesses expressed a strong interest in this project. Their investment roles are: Equipment dealer- Subsidizing the chipper operating costs
with in-kind match to aid project implementation. Consultant- In-kind time donation towards project administration. There is currently little activity in offsite slash removal and biomass processing in the area. We view this project as a "primer" and then a "hand-off" thus avoiding the perception of unfair
competetive ad
D. If the project involves new product development, what evidence is there for economically viable and sustainable markets? (10 points)
Response:
There is currently a demand for chips from a power generating plant in Stevens County (35 miles from project area). Over 80% of their chip procurement
comes from CANADA. We believe this project will change this trend. However, due to fragmentation and overhead costs, slash is generally by-passed as
"non-commercial". Our proposal seeks to consolidate the slash through a collection network, thus minimizing overhead, potentially reducing costs and
making businesses notice the opportunitie
E. Can this project be offered as a model for other communities or businesses? If so, why and how will results of this project be disseminated or made
available? (5 points)
Response:
ABSOLUTELY, If successful we believe the marketplace will identify and find additional product and market niches for biomass. We currently have a
strong ground-swell interest in biomass technology and emerging markets in our area. We believe making this resource more accessible will further this
cause. This concept can be adapted in other natural resource dependent counties. The SCCD will coordinate tours, workshops and write media events to
encourage attention and focus on this project.
F. How will the project be sustained beyond project timelines? If public funding will continue to be needed, why, how much, and for how long? (5 points)
Response:
Once the demonstrational phase of this proposal is completed a second "building phase might be needed to build a county-wide network of biomass
collection sites. Funding needs will depend on market conditions at the time of project consideration. We feel if our Countries' energy needs continue to
expand so will the need for these bimass materials. Two year additional funding project: purchasing infrastructural building equipment and sub-lease to
cooperators, Second ph. $210,000 (If needed
2. Taking Advantage of Existing Networks, previously-funded projects and knowledge. (20 points)
A. How does this project take advantage of relevant, existing networks and the results from previously-funded projects or commercial operations? (10
points)
Response:
The SCCD will utilize acquired experience and knowledge of the Montana Community Development Corporation (MCDC) and their preliminary work in
biomass collecting and processing field. The SCCD is in close communication and will share our acquired information with MCDC and other institutions as
identified. No current biomass collection operations are working in our immediate area. We look to be the nucleus for this emerging market and its need for
further knowledge and information building.
B. Who and what (individuals, businesses, organizations, reports, studies, Internet sites, etc.) were consulted to ensure the best information available was
used in designing this project proposal? (5 points)
Response:
-Chewelah CWPP; Stevens Co. LCG; Steve Rawlings-USFS Colville National Forest; Craig Rawlings-MCDC, various biomass studies; Dave AtkinsUSDA Forest Service R1&4;Berrigan Forestry-Kettle Falls, WA; Vermeer INC.
C. How did your group arrive at your cost structure for all of the main areas including: personnel, equipment, supplies, and overhead? (5 points)
Response:
Queried current market needs and conditions for biomass logging logistics. Interviewed local forest businesses/vendors. Utilized existing case studies and
USFS fuels staff experience.
3. Expanding community participation and collaboration. (20 Points)
A. Who are the partners and community members involved in planning and implementing the project? (5 points)
Response:
The Stevens County Cons. Dist. is a local conservation agency w/ over 60 yrs. of experience. Northeast WA Forestry Coalition; Stevens
CO.Commissioners;Private Industry-Local Community Infrastructure; Montana Community Devel. Corp.; USFS R-6.
B. How much cost-sharing is there for this project? (10 points)
Response:
Various Individuals are Cost-Sharing the financial cost of this project. SCCD = $11,750 or 35% UI = $5,200 or 50% Contractor = $10,000 or 23% Vendor
(Vermeer) = $4000 or 14%
C. What are the direct community benefits that will result from this project? (5 points)
Response:
-Lower smoke emmissions from reduced woody burn piles; Biomass available for local marketplace; Stimulate local entrepreneurial investment in slash
disposal; NEXT STEP wood fired boilers at large public buildings, schools, hospitals etc.
Project Work Form
Tasks
Time Frame
Responsible Party
1-Develop Network collection yard(s) Initially one 9/30/06
or two. Chewelah and TBA location (north central
county)
SCCD Site Prep Contractor
2-Contract w/ container rental/lease company 50-60 9/30/06-10/30/06
yd volume capacity
SCCD Roll-off leasor/renter
3-coordinate with timber companies for slash
disposal/pick-up
8/30/06-12/30/06
SCCD Timber companies
4-Create education campaign to engage additional
private landowners and aprise of slash collection
program
11/06 - 11/08
SCCD
5-Gather use data/time/motion monitoring/data
collection for future program adjustment and
growth.
9/06 - 11/06
SCCD UI Forest Lab
6-Evaluate project start-up and end of grant results. 6/07 - 11/08
SCCD UI Forest Lab
Project Budget
UI (Data
Cost Category
Description
Federal
Agency
Applicant
Collect)
Contractor
Vermeer
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Total
Personnel
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$30,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10,000.00
$25,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$40,000.00
$1,750.00
$1,750.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,500.00
$250.00
$0.00
$200.00
$0.00
$0.00
$450.00
$2,000.00
$1,750.00
$200.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,950.00
$500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$500.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$2,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,500.00
Chipper Rental
$12,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,000.00
$16,000.00
Drop-Box/End Dump Rental
$12,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12,000.00
$24,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,000.00
$28,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
loader/operator
$16,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,000.00
$0.00
$24,000.00
Site Prep/Haul
$16,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$18,000.00
$32,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
$42,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$87,500.00
$11,750.00
$5,200.00
$10,000.00
$4,000.00
$118,450.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$75,000.00
$0.00
$75,000.00
SCCD Staff
Other (data collect)
Subtotal
Fringe Benefits
SCCD
Other (data collect)
Subtotal
Travel
SCCD
UI
Subtotal
Equipment
Subtotal
Supplies
Field evaluation tools
Subtotal
Contractual
Subtotal
Other
Subtotal
Total Costs
Project (Program) Income 1
(using deductive alternative)
1 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.