A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program 2014-2023 MICHAEL R. COUGHLAN, HARPER LOEB, HEIDI HUBER-STEARNS, ERIC M. WHITE, EMILY JANE DAVIS, AND STEPHANIE A. SCHNEIDER SUMMER 2025 E C O S Y S T E M W O R K F O R C E P R O G R A M W O R K I N G P A P E R N U M B E R 1 2 2 Ecosystem Workforce Program About the Authors Michael R. Coughlan is an associate research professor and co-director of the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments, University of Oregon. Harper Loeb was a graduate employee for the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments, University of Oregon. Heidi Huber-Stearns is an associate research professor, director of the Center for Wildfire Smoke Research and Practice, and co-director of the Ecosystem Workforce Program in the Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities and Environments at the University of Oregon. Eric M. White is a research social scientist with the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Emily Jane Davis is the director of the Forestry & Natural Resources Extension Fire Program, principal investigator for the Northwest Fire Science Consortium, and associate professor (Practice) of the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University. Stephanie A. Schneider is a faculty research assistant at the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments, University of Oregon. About the Ecosystem Workforce Program: The Ecosystem Workforce Program is a program of University of Oregon’s Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments. We conduct applied social science research and extension services at the interface of people and natural resources. Our publications aim to inform policy makers and practitioners and contribute to scholarly and practical discourse. Acknowledgements We extend our gratitude and appreciation to Rob Barnhardt and Dave Wilson for providing and explaining Forest Service data and reviewing initial drafts. Peer review was provided by Lindsey Buchanan, USDA Forest Service; Melanie Colavito, Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University and Chelsea Pennick, Policy Analysis Group, Department of Natural Resources and Society, University of Idaho. This work was supported USDA Forest Service agreement number 22-CS-11132400-202. All photos are public domain courtesy of: USDA Forest Service Flickr sites Document Layout: Casey Davis For questions, please contact: Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments (IROCE) 5247 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97503-5247 https://resilient.uoregon.edu/ewp The University of Oregon is an equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. This publication will be made available in accessible formats upon request. ©2025 University of Oregon. https://resilient.uoregon.edu/ewp Table of Contents Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Report Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Development of Monitoring Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Analysis of secondary data and creating a baseline (Phase 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Monitoring Baseline and Plan Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Monitoring Questions: 1: Management Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2: Timber Sale and Service Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3: Local Capture of Work including Direct and Indirect Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4: Stewardship Contracting Businesses and Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5: Contract and Management Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6: Reduced Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7: Infrastructure Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 8: Leveraged Funds from Non-Agency Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9: Opportunities for Local Community Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 10: Agency Engagement with Non-Agency Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Appendices: A: Stewardship Activities, Further Methods and Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 B: Local Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 C: Modeling Direct Economic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 D: Stewardship Timber Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 4 Glossary FACTS database: The Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS), links accomplishment data and spatial identifiers to display where activities take place across forests. Data are available across all units of the National Forest System and provide a standardized format for reporting a diversity of resource activities. FACTS data are organized by activity, administrative unit, date, stage (planned, accomplished or completed) and major program. IMPLAN: Software used to analyze and estimate direct, indirect and induced economic impacts for a sector of interest. PALS database: The Forest Service’s Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System (PALS) tracks NEPA analyses by decision type, date of initiation and decisions, administrative unit, and the status of any appeals or litigation. Stewardship contracts: A category of contract authorized for use by the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management that allows for the exchange of goods for services. Stewardship contracts can be awarded to federal, state, local, Tribal, community, and nongovernmental agencies and groups. The authorities encourage community involvement in identifying local/community goals and “best value” selection criteria. Integrated Resource Timber Contracts, Integrated Resource Service Contracts, stewardship agreements and Stewardship Service Contracts, are included under stewardship contracts: • Integrated Resource Timber Contracts (IRTC): used when the value of timber removed is greater than the value of the identified services required under the contract. Stewardship authorities allow the National Forest unit in which the work took place to retain the revenue (called “retained receipts”) for additional service work on the Forest, rather than return them to the Treasury. • Integrated Resource Service Contracts (IRSC): used when the value of service activities exceeds the value of timber removed. In these types of contracts, the value of timber removed is supplemented by federal appropriations or retained receipts. • Stewardship agreements: a tool the Forest Service can use to engage non-federal partners in a proposed project to be implemented on National Forest System lands where there is mutual interest and mutual benefit. The project(s) must meet one of the seven specified land management goals under the stewardship authorities. • Stewardship Service Contract (SC): used for non-timber, small scale projects. Funded by retained receipts generated from other stewardship contracts. TIM database: The Forest Service’s Timber Information Manager (TIM) supports Forest Service employees in the creation of forest product removal permits, conventional forest product sale documents, and stewardship sale contract documents. TIM also provides automated reporting mechanisms and tools for the sales of forest products, including stewardship and other authorities. TIM and TIM data are used to collect, analyze, maintain, track and report data about forest product permits and sales, including the volume and value of forest products sold from the national forests, grasslands and prairies. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 5 Executive Summary Stewardship contracts and agreements (steward- ship contracting) represent a set of flexible tools that the USDA Forest Service can use to accomplish man- agement goals while also responding to local social and economics contexts. Stewardship contracting is specifically designed to allow the Forest Service to develop long-term, sustainable working relation- ships with non-federal partners in order to more efficiently and effectively implement forest restora- tion and related management. Monitoring social and economic dimensions of land management can help managers and decision mak- ers better understand how tools like stewardship authorities meet their intended goals. The USDA For- est Service Washington Office entered into an agree- ment with the Ecosystem Workforce Program (EWP) at the University of Oregon to create a new, national, program-level social and economic monitoring plan for analyzing the following: 1. Social and economic outcomes of national forest management. 2. Specific challenges, successes, and future oppor- tunities associated with working with local com- munities, focusing on, but not limited to, the stew- ardship contracting authorities and how partners, stakeholders, and communities collaborate and participate in national forest system management processes. 3. Strengths and weaknesses of programs that involve local communities and how they may be improved. This working paper identifies 10 social and economic monitoring questions to employ for future monitor- ing of stewardship contracting, including a synthesis of past research and reports on these topics to date. A full list of monitoring questions can be found in Table A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 6 2 (page 12). We conduct a baseline assessment of stew- ardship contracting for six of the monitoring questions through an analysis of secondary data for the years 2014-2023. The remaining four monitoring questions did not have relevant secondary data available. Those questions will be the focus of primary data collection and analysis in future monitoring. Overall, the litera- ture review and secondary data analyses found that stewardship contracts and agreements are effectively meeting the specified goal of “perform[ing] services to achieve land management goals for the national forests and the public lands that meet local and rural community needs” (P.L. 108-148, section 604). This social and economic monitoring baseline as- sessment found that in the ten years of stewardship contracting on national forest lands, a range of activi- ties were conducted, mainly fire- and timber-related activities, through contracts that generated over $560 million in timber sales and supported the creation of more than 43,000 jobs. Most contracts were award- ed to local or somewhat local businesses, and only a small fraction of related NEPA decisions faced litiga- tion. The program engaged over 400 unique entities and leveraged federal funds with partner contribu- tions, especially from nonprofits and local govern- ments. Our synthesis of past research and reports on these topics to date found that studies highlight ben- efits such as timber supply stability, innovation, and enhanced collaboration, including Tribal involve- ment, however more data is needed to confirm these impacts nationally. Key baseline findings by monitoring question were: Monitoring Question 1: What management ac- tivities were accomplished under the stewardship authority, where were those activities located, and what number of acres were accomplished? • FACTS data from 2014 to 2023 identified approxi- mately 31,000 stewardship activities on national forest lands involving 171 unique activity codes. Eleven million acres were treated under the activ- ity “fire”; other activities included “timber and sil- viculture”, “wildlife”, and “range”. Monitoring Question 2: What was the volume and value of timber sold as a result of stewardship con- tracting? Where did stewardship timber contracts take place? • Stewardship contract sale volume from 2014-2023 totaled 7,392 MMBF worth nearly $560 million (to- tal bid value) and $634 million (total bid for services value). In 2023, there were 195 sales with a total contract sale volume of 928 MMBF and total timber bid value worth $52 million. Across all 293 ranger districts utilizing stewardship contracting, an aver- age of 40% of timber sale bids went to a local pur- chaser, 33% to a somewhat local purchaser, and 27% to a non-local purchaser. Monitoring Question 3: Did stewardship contracts generate jobs in the local community? • Stewardship contract timber sales supported an av- erage of 1,863 local jobs each year across all For- est Service regions (2014-2023). An additional 1,440 and 1,038 jobs were supported, on average, each year in areas that were somewhat local and non- local, respectively. The average estimated income (wage) per job varied between regions and ranged from $35,174 (R3: Southwest) to $65,899 (R6: Pacific Northwest). Monitoring Question 4: What businesses and orga- nizations are engaging in stewardship contracting? • TIM data show that stewardship contracts went to 410 unique businesses and organizations between 2014 and 2023. Eleven cooperator types were iden- tified in stewardship agreements signed between 2008 and 2023. Nonprofit organizations were the most common cooperator type among all Forest Service regions nationwide. Other cooperators in- cluded county governments, for-profit organiza- tions, Tribal governments, city or township govern- ments, and special district governments. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 7 Monitoring Question 5: Are stewardship contracts more efficient for the Forest Service than conven- tional timber sales or service contracts? • Previous survey and interview-based studies found that stewardship contracting enabled management efficiencies and cost efficiencies. Forty-four percent of respondents from a nationwide survey of forest service personnel viewed stewardship contracting as a tool to accomplish more work on the ground. More primary data collection is needed to effective- ly assess this question. Monitoring Question 6: How does litigation and public concern of stewardship projects compare to similar timber sales and service contracts? • For timber sales awarded in fiscal years 2014-2023, four percent of NEPA decisions (n=110 out of 2,799) were litigated regardless of whether they involved stewardship contracts or agreements. Monitoring Question 7: Did outside investment in the processing or utilization of woody biomass oc- cur during the lifetime of the stewardship contract? • Previous literature noted that stewardship contracting is able to stabilize forest product supply due to longer duration of contracts, investment, and utilization of small-diameter materials. Additional data collection is needed to verify if this is happening in practice. Monitoring Question 8: Did the stewardship contract attract additional funds or in-kind contributions from related partners? • Stewardship contracting federal funds were often leveraged by matching funds from partner organi- zations, as noted in past literature. Partner dona- tions may come from groups with interests in forest health for recreation or habitat. Monitoring Question 9: How do stewardship projects offer opportunities for local community participation? • Existing literature suggests that involving commu- nity members in decision-making processes can improve management outcomes and strengthen commitment to achieving stewardship goals. Col- laborative approaches enabled local communities to build relationships, experiment with land man- agement approaches, and create more strategic localized planning and implementation of treat- ments. More primary data collection is needed to effectively assess this question. Monitoring Question 10: How did engagement with non-agency partners through stewardship contracting affect the agency and its management processes? • Previous surveys and case studies have found that stewardship contracting incorporates diverse in- terests, broadens project scope, fosters innovative approaches, and enhances project ownership and commitment through non-agency collaboration, in- cluding facilitating collaborative partnerships. Case studies also noted that monitoring requirements built into the stewardship contracting authorities improved monitoring through secure funding. More primary data collection is needed to confirm these findings on a national scale. Future monitoring work (Phase 2), combining prima- ry data with secondary data, will allow for broader understanding of how effectively the stewardship authorities are both managing federal landscapes for desired future conditions and contributing to the de- velopment of sustainable local and rural communi- ties. We suggest that a fruitful approach could involve the use of mix-methods data collection applied to a geographically representative, systematic sample of stewardship projects. Data collection methods could involve systematic review of stewardship project documents, surveys, and semi-structured interviews or focus groups. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 8 Introduction In 2014, permanent “stewardship authorities” were granted to the USDA Forest Service (hereafter Forest Service) and the USDOI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by Congress as part of the Farm Bill, extend- ing the temporary authority that had been in place since 1999 (P.L. 105-277, section 347; P.L. 113-79, Sec- tion 8205). The purpose of the stewardship contract- ing authorities is to allow the agencies to “perform services to achieve land management goals for the national forests and the public lands that meet lo- cal and rural community needs” (P.L. 113-79, Section 8205). Land management goals of stewardship proj- ects include water quality restoration and mainte- nance, soil productivity, promotion of wildlife and fisheries habitat, promotion of healthy forest stands, fire hazard reduction, and noxious and exotic weed control. Stewardship contracting activities used to meet these goals include road and trail maintenance, prescribed fire, timber removal, watershed and habi- tat restoration, and native plant re-establishment. The stewardship contracting authorities also allow federal agencies to achieve land management goals through the exchange of goods (forest products) for services (restoration activities). Unlike traditional timber sale contracts, the agency can retain pro- ceeds from timber sales (i.e. retained receipts) and apply those to other forest stewardship activities on the same National Forest unit. Contracts are addi- tionally allowed to be selected by the Forest Service based upon the best overall value rather than the lowest overall cost. Another key objective of the authorities is to con- tribute to the development of sustainable local and rural communities and meet local and rural community needs (USDA Forest Service n.d.). This objective was interpreted by the Forest Service as the provision of local economic outcomes such as stable sources of community income and employ- ment (USDA Forest Service 2009). This objective is built on long-term rural development policy which was designed to promote rural community stabil- ity through ensuring sustained yield of timber sup- ply and support for local wood products industries (Schallau and Alston, 1986; Roth, 1991). It also is aligned with Collaborative Forest Landscape Res- toration Program (CFLRP) goals that seek to sup- port local economies while reducing risks of severe wildfires and their management costs (Schultz, 2012). In service of these rural development ob- jectives, contracts and agreements are allowed to be entered into by the Forest Service for up to 20 years, thus enabling long-term, stable relationships with local economies and defining new roles for community participation. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 9 The stewardship contracting authorities (P.L. 113-79, Section 8205) stipulate that multiparty monitoring and evaluation processes be engaged in by agencies and community stakeholders to specifically report on (1) “the status of development, execution, and administra- tion of agreements or contracts,” (2) “the specific ac- complishments that have resulted” from stewardship contracting, and (3) “the role of local communities in the development of agreements or contract plans.” As part of that effort, the USDA Forest Service Wash- ington Office engaged the Ecosystem Workforce Pro- gram (EWP) at the University of Oregon to create a monitoring plan for analysis of: 1. Social and economic outcomes of national forest management. 2. Specific challenges, successes, and future opportuni- ties associated with working with local communities, focusing on the stewardship contracting authority. 3. How partners, stakeholders, and communities collaborate and participate in national forest system management processes. 4. Strengths and weaknesses of programs that involve local communities and how they may be improved. The purpose of this report is to provide a monitor- ing plan to address component #1— the social and economic outcomes of national forest management. We additionally used available secondary data about Forest Service use of the stewardship authorities to develop a baseline assessment of stewardship ser- vice contracts, timber sale contracts, and agreements for fiscal years 2014-2023 (referred to collectively as stewardship contracts). Monitoring social and eco- nomic dimensions of land management is expected to help managers and decision makers better under- stand how tools like stewardship authorities meet their intended goals. Background The Forest Service implements the stewardship au- thorities by awarding stewardship agreements and stewardship contracts, which include forest product removal and service work components. The steward- ship authorities allow the Forest Service to apply the value of the timber removed to offset the cost of ser- vices received in a “goods for services” exchange. It additionally gives the Forest Service the flexibility to apply excess receipts from one stewardship project to another, and to award contracts and agreements A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 10 on a “best value” basis, which can include price, past performance, work quality, and outcomes to the local community (USDA Forest Service 2022). The Forest Service enters into stewardship agree- ments with entities such as state or local govern- ments, Tribes, or non-profit organizations when there is mutual interest and benefit in the objectives of the agreement. Stewardship agreements can last up to ten years and require a 20% match from the partner. Stewardship agreements can be stand-alone, or they can be a part of a Master stewardship Agree- ment or Supplemental Project Agreement. The Forest Service awards stewardship contracts to businesses for services such as pre-commercial thin- ning, trail maintenance, and riparian restoration, in which some of the service costs may be offset by the value of the forest products removed. Stewardship Ser- vice Contracts (SC), Integrated Resource Service Con- tracts (IRSC), and Integrated Resource Timber Contracts (IRTC) are the three types of stewardship contracts. SCs involve services with no timber removal and are used to spend retained receipts, i.e. funds generated from the sale of timber. Both IRTC and IRSC contract types involve the sale of timber and service work. IRTCs are used when the value of the timber removed in a timber sale is greater than the value of the contracted services. In this type of contract, purchaser payments for timber are retained by the Forest as retained receipts or they are traded for service work performed by the timber purchaser or a subcontractor. IRSCs are mechanisms in which the value of the timber removed is less than the value of the services performed. In these types of contracts, retained receipts (from timber sales) traded for service work are supplemented by federal appro- priations for service work. As part of granting stewardship contracting authori- ties, Congress required the Forest Service and BLM to report annually on the involvement of local communi- ties; cooperating local, state, and Tribal governments; and other interested parties in the development of stewardship contracts. Report Purpose This report expands upon previous case study ap- proaches by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation (see https://pinchot.org/stewardship-contracting) and serves as a baseline for future nationwide monitor- ing. We developed a set of monitoring questions based on our (EWP) previous experience in social and eco- nomic monitoring (https://resilient.uoregon.edu/ewp/ currentprojects) and in consultation with partners at Oregon State University and the Washington Office of the Forest Service. We drafted protocols for answering those questions based on a comprehensive review of literature and available secondary data. We addition- ally developed novel empirical methods for assessing “local” outcomes across national forest lands and ad- jacent communities using existing Forest Service da- tasets and additional secondary data. Specifically, we: (1) developed monitoring questions through a review of previous scholarship on the outcomes of steward- ship contracting and agreements, (2) analyzed Forest Service forestry-related service contracts, timber sale contracts, and stewardship agreements, from 2014 to 2023, as a secondary data baseline, and (3) explored the implications of our findings for in- forming future social and economic monitoring of activities related to the Forest Service use of the stew- ardship authorities, such as CFLRP related community outcomes. https://pinchot.org/stewardship-contracting https://resilient.uoregon.edu/ewp/currentprojects https://resilient.uoregon.edu/ewp/currentprojects A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 11 Approach Although the Forest Service has used stewardship contracting mechanisms for over 25 years, the agen- cy’s administrative datasets do not systematically track activities associated with stewardship contracts at the project level. Available data detail stewardship contracts and accomplishments, but they do not di- rectly link those data to articulate their relationship (Figure 1). To address this challenge, we divided our monitoring plan into two phases: Phase 1, which we present in this report, summa- rizes baseline data on the Forest Service stewardship program that we aggregated from contract-level and activity-level data. Phase 2, which we propose as future monitoring, would repeat national-level secondary data analy- ses we used in Phase 1 and compare them with the baseline data we present in this report. We also pro- pose primary and additional (local) secondary data collection to improve the secondary data analyses we conducted in Phase 1 and to help understand what project-level processes and outcomes reveal about the stewardship program. To improve secondary data analyses, we recommend that Phase 2 monitoring include a national-level sur- vey of stewardship contractors (see monitoring ques- tions 2, 3, and 4). To better understand processes and outcomes of stewardship projects nationally, we could also in- clude mixed-method, qualitative-quantitative data collection and analysis in the Phase 2 research design, with specific methods tailored to individual monitor- ing questions. This component of Phase 2 monitoring would collect data from a geographically representa- tive, systematic sample of recently completed (within the last five years) stewardship projects from across the National Forest System. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 12 ������������������������� ����� ��� �� ��� ��� ����� ��� ��� ����� ����� ��� ����� � � �� ��������� ��� ���� ������������ � � �� ���� ������ ����� ��������������������������������������� ������� ����� ����������� ����������� ��� ����������� ������ �������� ��� ������� �� ���� ��������� � ������������ � ������ ���������� ��� ��������� ������ �� ����������� ���� �� ��������� �������� �� � �� ������������ ������� ���� ������ ������ ������������������������� ���������� � � ���� �� ������ ������ ������ ����� ����� � Figure 1 Monitoring Plan Overview Development of Monitoring Questions We developed monitoring questions through review of peer reviewed journal articles and past monitor- ing reports on stewardship contracting. We aimed to identify the research and monitoring questions that scholars have previously addressed about stew- ardship contracting. We used six different Boolean statements applied to common scholarly databases (Web of Science, JSTOR, BioOne, and PAIS Index). We limited search results to publications dated af- ter 1998, as that year marks the first official use of stewardship contracting authorities by the Forest Service. The Boolean search terms “(“stewardship contract*” OR “stewardship agreement” OR “stew- ardship authorities”)” yielded the largest number of papers (31), with 13 results remaining after filtering by country and date of publication. We identified 10 additional sources by consulting with experts with previous experience monitoring stewardship con- tracting. Source types included congressional tes- timonies, annual reports from private and federal entities, briefing papers, news articles, and peer- reviewed articles. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 13 Analysis of secondary data and creating a baseline (Phase 1) In this monitoring plan, we present baseline infor- mation from secondary data sources (Table 1) col- lected by the Forest Service. For analysis, we used R Studio v2024.09.1.394 and ESRI ArcGIS Pro 3.3.2. Be- low, and in Appendix A, we provide additional details on methods and data limitations for each monitoring question. Table 1 Secondary data used in this analysis Data Source Dates Description and purpose Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS): Forestry-related contracts 2014-2021 Filtered Forest Service contracts for data on labor- intensive forestry contracting. Extrapolated median distance between contractor place of business and Forest Service Ranger District where the work took place. Forest Service Timber Information Management System (TIM): Timber sales 2014-2023 Timber sale contract data. Tabulated sales, extracted sale volume and bid amounts, and calculated distances traveled between purchaser place of business and Forest Service Ranger District where the work took place. Forest Service Forest Activity Tracking System (FACTS): Timber harvests 2014-2023 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project names Forest Service Forest Activity Tracking System (FACTS): Stewardship activities 2014-2023 Activity type, location Forest Service Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System (PALS): litigated projects 2005-2021 Litigation indicators for projects planned within the context of the NEPA A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 14 1. Approach: methods used for analyzing secondary data available to answer the question 2. Monitoring baseline (Phase 1) a. Previous research and monitoring b. Secondary data analysis 3. Considerations for Phase 2 monitoring Monitoring Baseline and Plan Organization This section is organized by each numbered moni- toring question. Table 2 includes a list of monitoring questions, indicators, data sources, and recommend- ed future data collection methods. For each monitor- ing question, we list: Table 2 Monitoring Questions, Indicators, and Data Sources Monitoring Question: What management activities were accomplished under the stewardship authorities, where were those activities located, and what number of acres were accomplished?1 Indicators Phase 1 data source Recommended Phase 2 monitoring • Number of acres • Years completed • Type of work • Forest Service Forest Activity Tracking System (FACTS) database • Conduct a systematic sample of stewardship projects • Collect data from Forest Service personnel and stewardship partners 2 Monitoring Question: What was the volume and value of timber sold as a result of stewardship contracting? Where did stewardship timber contracts take place? Indicators Phase 1 data source Recommended Phase 2 monitoring • Sale volume & bid amount • Distances traveled by purchaser • Forest Service Timber Information Management System (TIM) database • Administer a national-level contractor survey 3 Monitoring Question: Did stewardship contracts generate jobs in the local community? Indicators Phase 1 data source Recommended Phase 2 monitoring • Jobs supported • Forest Service Timber Information Management System (TIM) database • Administer a national-level contractor survey • Coordinate with Forest Service Policy Office economists 4 Monitoring Question: What businesses and organizations are engaging in stewardship contracting? Indicators Phase 1 data source Recommended Phase 2 monitoring • Business or organization name • Type of business (contractor, non-profit, etc.) • Forest Service Timber Information Management System (TIM) database • Administer a national-level contractor survey • Identify additional sources to verify businesses and organization types A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 15 5 Monitoring Question: Are stewardship contracts more efficient for the Forest Service than conventional timber sales or service contracts? Indicators Phase 1 data source Recommended Phase 2 monitoring • Reduced costs • Achieving specific project outcomes* • No secondary data available, *indicated from past literature • Conduct a systematic sample of stewardship projects 6 Monitoring Question: How does litigation and public concern of stewardship projects compare to similar timber sales and service contracts? Indicators Phase 1 data source Recommended Phase 2 monitoring • NEPA decision • Forest Service Timber Information Management System (TIM) database • Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System (PALS) • Conduct a systematic sample of stewardship projects 7 Monitoring Question: Did outside investment in the processing or utilization of woody biomass occur during the lifetime of the stewardship contract? Indicators Phase 1 data source Recommended Phase 2 monitoring • Forest product supply stability* • No secondary data available, *indicated from past literature • Administer a national-level contractor survey 8 Monitoring Question: Did the stewardship contract attract additional funds or in-kind contributions from related partners? Indicators Phase 1 data source Recommended Phase 2 monitoring • Contribution amount(s)* • No secondary data available, *indicated from past literature • Collect data from forest service and non-agency partners in conjunction with the proposed systematic sample of stewardship projects 9 Monitoring Question: How do stewardship projects offer opportunities for local community participation? Indicators Phase 1 data source Recommended Phase 2 monitoring • Community participation opportunity • No secondary data available, *indicated from past literature • Collect data on community engagement in conjunction with proposed systematic sample of stewardship project 10 Monitoring Question: How did engagement with non-agency partners through stewardship contracting affect the agency and its management processes? Indicators Phase 1 data source Recommended Phase 2 monitoring • Level of perceived trust* • Type of perceived trust* • Project scope and outcomes* • Funding security* • Knowledge transfer* • No secondary data available, *indicated from past literature • Conduct a systematic review of project-level monitoring efforts implemented in conjunction with the proposed systematic sample of stewardship projects A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 16 Monitoring Question 1: Management Outcomes What management activities were accomplished under the stewardship authorities (e.g. habitat improvement, fuel reduction, restoration, etc.), where were those activities located, and what number of acres were accomplished? How did management activities contribute to stewardship management goals? Approach Database used: Forest Service Forest Activity Tracking Sys- tem (FACTS) database1 To assess the type and location of Forest Service stew- ardship accomplishments, we used publicly avail- able, spatially explicit data from the Forest Service Forest Activity Tracking System (FACTS) database (USDA Forest Service 2024). See Appendix A: Steward- ship Activities for additional methods. We also used stewardship agreement data to study what land management activities were carried out un- der these agreements. Agreements were categorized by project type, such as ecosystem management, fire management, forest health, or timber management. Monitoring baseline Previous research and monitoring From 1999 to 2013 the Forest Service awarded 1,511 stewardship contracts (including agreements) (Pin- chot Institute for Conservation 2012b, 2013, 2014). The primary on-the-ground outcomes of stewardship contracts awarded during 1999-2013 included habi- tat improvement, fuel reduction, and restoration. In- dividual project size and scope were rarely reported in the existing literature, so we could not summarize project size ranges or the prevalence of particular types of outcomes for years prior to the reach of the FACTS dataset (see below). According to a report to the Appropriations Committees of the U.S. House and Senate, in federal fiscal year 2005 there were 86 ap- 1 https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 17 proved stewardship projects with example projects presented ranging in size from 22 to 18,249 acres (USDA Forest Service, 2006). However, this report does not indicate whether any of the example ap- proved projects were awarded during that fiscal year. Secondary data analysis (2014-2023) Between 2014 and 2023, there were approximately 31,000 stewardship activity areas on National Forest lands involving 171 different activity codes that are generally classified into five different management categories including fire, timber and silviculture, wildlife, range, and miscellaneous (Figure 2). Figure 2 Locations of stewardship activities, federal fiscal years 2014 -2023; Source: FACTS (USDA Forest Service 2024) Boise City Chicago Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Los Angeles Denver Bridgeport Wilmington Washington Birmingham Phoenix Little Rock Louisville New Orleans Portland Baltimore Boston Detroit Jacksonville Atlanta Albuquerque New York Charlotte Fargo Columbus Virginia Beach Seattle Huntington Milwaukee Cheyenne Oklahoma City Portland Philadelphia Providence Charleston Sioux Falls Minneapolis Jackson Kansas City Billings Omaha Las Vegas Manchester Newark Nashville Houston Salt Lake City Burlington San Francisco Anchorage Honolulu Stewardship Activities Interstates Major Rivers National Forests Major Cities ± A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 18 Figure 3 Stewardship activity categories by number of acres treated for federal fiscal years 2014 -2023, Source: FACTS (USDA Forest Service 2024). Tr ea tm en t T yp e Fire Timber & Silviculture Wildlife Range Miscellaneous 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1000s of acres Table 3 Stewardship activity categories by number of acres treated for federal fiscal years 2014 -2023, Source: FACTS (USDA Forest Service 2024). Activity Category 1000s of acres Fire 112.6 Timber & Silviculture 422.9 Wildlife 225.7 Range 115.3 Miscellaneous 9.5 Soil, Air, and Watershed 2.6 Cultural Resources & Recreation 2.1 Vegetation/Restoration 1.3 Engineering 0.6 By far, the largest number of acres treated were within the fire category which includes fire sup- pression, prevention, and fuels management. Tim- ber and silviculture activities encompassed the next largest number of acres (Figure 3, Table 3). A full list of activities using a more detailed categorical schema can be found in Table A2 in Appendix A. Agreement project categories are summarized in Figure 4 and Table 4. Forest health comprised the most numerous project category for agreements (n = 176), followed by watershed management (n= 125) and ecosystem management (n=92). There were sig- nificantly fewer agreements for fire management and fire mitigation related to the National Priority Landscapes (n =39 and n= 25 respectively). A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 19 Pr og ra m C at eg or y Forest Health Watershed Ecosystem Timber Wildlife Fire Roads National Priority Landscapes Fisheries Lands Trails Sustainable Forestry Practices Range Cooperative Forestry Recreation Soils and/or Air Wilderness Training and/or Manpower Development Disaster Asistance Business Admin/Operations Environmental Education/Interpretation Urban and Community Foresty Interns Figure 4 Number of stewardship agreements by project category, for federal fiscal years 2014 -2023 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Number of Agreements Table 4 Number of stewardship agreements by project category for projects fund- ed by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, H.R. 3684 (Public Law 117- 58), for federal fiscal years 2014 -2023. Program Category Agreements Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 4 Forest Health 1 GNA and TFPA Restoration Projects 2 National Revegetation Effort 1 Prescribed Fire and Related Activities 1 Removal of Flammable Vegetation 2 Stewardship Agreements to Restore Ecological Health 11 Timber Thinning and Harvesting 1 A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 20 Considerations for Phase 2 monitoring • Repeat national level tracking of activities with FACTS data and compare to baseline results. • Conduct primary data collection and additional project-level secondary data from Forest Service personnel and stewardship partners to link ac- tivities to projects and gather information about local impacts. We found that the spatial location information, activ- ity classification, and spatial footprint of activities in the FACTS dataset were sufficient for summarizing stewardship activities at the national level. However, the FACTS dataset does not show how many types of activities or acres are involved in a given stewardship project, nor does it clarify how those activities relate to stewardship management goals. We also recognized that the FACTS classification schema may obscure important variability in management practices or approaches within specific activity categories—vari- ability that may be critical for understanding specific local contexts. To address these limitations, we propose a monitoring approach that uses a geographically representative, systematic sample of case studies for primary data col- lection. This approach aims to develop project-level understanding of how stewardship activities align with stewardship project management goals. By using survey instruments or structured interview protocols with Forest Service personnel and stewardship part- ners, we can generate new project-level data. As part of this effort, we can gain enhanced understanding of management outcomes through qualitative inquiry into the co-benefits that communities derive from stewardship activities on their local National Forests. These co-benefits may include economic development, increased collaboration, or specific project outcomes (Pinchot Institute for Conservation 2010). A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 21 Monitoring Question 2: Timber Sale and Service Output What was the volume and value of timber sold as a result of stewardship contracting? Where did stewardship timber contracts take place? Approach Database used: Forest Service Timber Information Manager (TIM)2 We obtained Forest Service Timber Information Manager (TIM) data for federal fiscal years 2014 to 2023 from the Forest Service Washington office. This data contains information on timber sale contracts awarded by the Forest Service and lists the fiscal year of award and the location of the sale in terms of the National Forest System Region, National Forest, and Ranger District. It also lists the purchaser’s business name and address, the bid amount, and the estimated sale volume, as well as indicators for whether the sale was contracted under the stewardship authorities or other authorities such as the Good Neighbor Authority. Defining “Local” Although “local” economies and communities play a significant role in policies and objectives of the Forest Service, few efforts have defined what “local” means or, further, assessed how the Forest Service has or has not used stewardship contracting to address the relative needs of local communities. However, con- tracting ranger districts are differentially located with respect to local communities and forestry infrastruc- ture. Some ranger districts are adjacent to large com- munities with larger workforces and wood processing facilities while others are more remote or have less existing infrastructure. Therefore, to understand the potential for “local” benefits from stewardship con- tracting, we used locally derived distance thresholds (as opposed to one “global” definition) to define local area for each ranger district. To do this, we calculated the route-based driving distance between forestry A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 22 contractors’ places of business (PoB³) and the center (centroid) of the ranger district where the contracted work was performed. We then used this distance data to define route-based travel distance thresholds be- tween each ranger district and the places of business of forestry contractors. Lastly, we used these distance thresholds to classify timber sale contracts and their associated timber volume and bid values into three categories: local, somewhat local, and non-local. Defi- nitions for distance thresholds and distance catego- ries are presented in Appendix B, Local Analysis. Timber Sale Analysis We calculated the total timber sale revenue recycled into stewardship activities (retained receipts) by to- taling the service bid values on IRSC (contract type 33, 33T, 1449,1449T), IRTC (contract type 13/13T), and Stewardship Agreements (contract type 21 and 21T). We report these outputs for projects classified as “ac- complished” indicating that the contract has been awarded, but the activities may or may not yet be complete. Sales of firewood and cones were excluded. To understand how contracting dynamics played out between ranger districts and across the National Forest System, we summarized the local, somewhat local, and non-local stewardship timber sale bid values and ser- vices bid values by ranger district and classified each ranger district as local, somewhat local, and non-local in terms of their stewardship contracting practices. 1. Local ranger district: the summed local bid values (for both stewardship timber sale and services) were greater than the summed bid values of the other cat- egories combined. 2. Somewhat Local ranger district: the summed lo- cal bid values are less than the summed bid values for somewhat local contracts and the summed bid values for Local and Somewhat Local combined were greater than the summed bid value for Non-Local. 3. Non-Local: the summed Non-Local bid value was greater than the other categories combined. Monitoring baseline Previous research and monitoring From 2005 to 2007, 1,587 million board feet of timber was sold by the Forest Service under the stewardship contracting authorities, increasing from four percent in 2005 to 13 percent of all Forest Service timber sold in 2007 (United States Government Accountability Of- fice 2008). Previous studies of stewardship contract- ing timber sales have been limited to case studies of specific projects. Within these case studies, indi- vidual outputs and localcommunity impacts varied by project and therefore national-level conclusions are difficult to draw. For example, the Malheur 10- Year Stewardship Contract resulted in an average of 38 million board feet of timber harvested annually, mostly going to mills or log yards in northeastern Oregon (White 2018). For two stewardship contracts on the Mount Hood National Forest, $4 million was generated in output, with an output multiplier of 1.42 and economic effects primarily experienced in Clack- amas County, Oregon from 2007 to 2011 (Daniels et al. 2018). The Siuslaw Stewardship Contract resulted in 50 million board feet of timber sold from 2002 to 2007 (Sundstrom and Sundstrom 2018). Lastly, the Clearwater Stewardship Project generated a $23 mil- lion increase in sales for 206 industry sectors in eight Montana counties, a $1.4 million increase in propri- etors’ incomes, and $570,000 in indirect business tax- es from 2003 to 2004 (Kerkvliet 2010). Secondary Data Analysis (2014-2023) For fiscal years 2014-2023, we identified a total of 10,815 timber sales from 426 ranger districts within the TIM data (Figure 5). Approximately 15 percent of those timber sales (n= 1596) were sold as stewardship contracts from 293 ranger districts awarded to 410 entities (businesses, local governments, and non-profit organizations) across 38 states. The total stewardship contract sale volume for fiscal years 2014 to 2023 period was 7,392 million board feet (MMBF) worth nearly $560 mil- 3 Place of Business (PoB) is the administrative mailing and contact accress linked to each business in TIM and FPDS. some businesses have multiple locations that may not be reflected in the data. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 23 Figure 5 Location of timber sales from national forest ranger districts for federal fiscal years 2014 -2023; Source: FACTS (USDA Forest Service 2024) lion (“total bid value”) with $634 million in associated services (“total bid for services”). Stewardship contracts account for 29 percent of all sold timber volume (25,620 MMBF), and nearly 30 percent of all timber bid value in the National Forest System between 2014 and 2023. The number of stewardship timber contracts varied from a minimum of 138 in 2022 to a maximum of 195 in 2023. Sale volumes, bid amounts, and service com- ponents have also shifted over time (Table 5, Figure 7). These consisted of 996 Integrated Resource Timber Contracts (IRTCs), 392 Integrated Resource Service Contracts (IRSCs), and 208 stewardship agreements between 2014 and 2023 (Figure 8). Between 2014 and 2018, IRSCs and agreements accounted for 67 percent of the total bid for services and 15 percent of the total bid for timber. However, by 2023, IRSCs and agree- ments accounted for over 96 percent of service bid amounts and only 13 percent of the total timber bid value (Figure 9). A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 24 Table 5 Timber sale bid value, services bid value, total volume, and number of contracts by year. *These figures exclude projects involving firewood and cones. Fiscal Year Total Bid for Timber* (in millions) Total Bid for Services (in millions) Total Volume MMBF* Number of Contracts* 2014 $59.90 $32.53 780 159 2015 $59.34 $31.08 766 168 2016 $44.80 $42.71 655 156 2017 $78.96 $43.77 789 174 2018 $66.73 $28.50 724 156 2019 $58.25 $43.21 807 154 2020 $58.95 $46.58 831 156 2021 $45.31 $23.19 599 140 2022 $35.53 $50.56 514 138 2023 $51.68 $291.41 928 195 Figure 6 Total bid (in millions) for service and bid for timber amounts (2014-2023) Source: TIM database. $633.55 Total bid for service (2014-2023) $559.45 Total bid for timber (2014-2023) Figure 7 Timber bid value and services bid value by fiscal year, for federal fiscal years 2014 -2023, Source: TIM database. Bi d Va lu e (in m ill io ns ) Award Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 25 Figure 9 Stewardship timber sale number and contract type by fiscal year, for feder- al fiscal years 2014 -2023, Source: TIM. N um be r o f A gr ee m en ts Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 8 Total number of IRSC, IRTC, and Agreements (2014-2023). Agree- ments 208 IRSC 392 IRTC 996 92 101 104 97 91 106 85 102 116 102 20 20 20 26 29 12 27 27 11 9 47 53 32 31 36 22 26 59 41 45 In terms of individual sales, approximately 43 percent of stewardship timber sales were purchased by local businesses (n=688). By comparison, more than half (53 percent) of conventional (non-stewardship) timber sales went to local businesses. Local entities purchas- ing stewardship sales captured about 43 percent of the total stewardship sale volume for the entire period (3,225 MMBF). A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 26 Figure 10 (A) Classification of ranger districts reflecting the distance category (local, somewhat local, and non-local) of contrac- tors purchasing the majority of timber by dollar value; A Ranger District Distance Class Local Somewhat Local Non-Local Major Cities Major River Interstates National Forests A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 27 Figure 10 (B) Percent of ranger district summed sale bid value going to a local purchaser; B Percent Sale Bid Value to Local Purchaser 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Major Cities Major River Interstates National Forests A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 28 Figure 10 (C) Percent of ranger district summed services bid value going to a local purchaser; C Percent Services Bid Value to Local Purchaser 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Major Cities Major River Interstates National Forests A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 29 Figure 10 (D) Percent of ranger district summed timber volume (MMBF) going to local purchaser. D Percent Services Bid Value to Local Purchaser 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Major Cities Major River Interstates National Forests A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 30 Across all ranger districts, an average of 40 percent of stewardship timber sale bids went to a local purchas- er, 33% to a somewhat local purchaser, and 27 percent to a non-local purchaser. For fiscal years 2014-2023, 20 percent (n=60) of ranger districts in the National Forest System signed stewardship contracts with lo- cal purchasers exclusively. Sixteen percent (n=46) of ranger districts signed stewardship contracts with somewhat local purchasers exclusively and 13 per- cent (n=39) of ranger districts signed stewardship contracts with non-local purchasers exclusively. The remaining 148 districts sold to some combination of local, somewhat local, and/or non-local purchasers. Since each ranger district may have stewardship con- tracts at one or more of the three distance categories (i.e. local, somewhat local, non-local), we summarized districts by the distance category where most of their timber (in terms of dollar value) was sold (see figure 10). This allowed us to characterize ranger districts themselves as local, somewhat local, and non-local contracting units. Ranger districts classified as local had a slightly higher mean distance threshold (114 km) for what constitutes local than either somewhat local or non-local contracting ranger districts (78 km and 81 km respectively). This means that many ranger districts who predominantly contracted with somewhat local or non-local entities nevertheless do have local contractors with whom they work. Since subcontracting data are not recorded in the national FACTS database, it seems possible that many of the non-local contractors are subcontracting to these lo- cally-based timber operators, labor-intensive forestry contractors, or wood processing facilities. Considerations for Phase 2 monitoring • Apply methods described above to TIM data and compare to baseline assessment. • Pair secondary data analysis with a survey of stewardship contractors (and sub-contractors) to clarify questions related to wood processing products, business locations, and subcontracting. There were limitations to our approach to using secondary data for understanding local impacts. For example, 33 of the stewardship sale purchasers involved in 249 sales were non-governmental orga- nizations with multiple offices or locations such as the Nature Conservancy and the National Wild Tur- key Federation. These organizations often have their headquarters at great distances from the place of sale (average 1,078 km), but sub-contract the harvest and service work, potentially to local operators. On the other hand, anecdotal information suggests that local purchasers sometimes subcontract service work to non-local entities. There was no accessible dataset for information on subcontracting. Given these issues, we suggest that additional primary data collection on sub-contracting could provide a more comprehensive response to this monitoring question. While existing secondary data do provide understand- ing of the number, value, and types of stewardship sale purchasers, a survey of stewardship contractors (identified from secondary data) could supplement secondary data analyses of timber sales by informing on wood products resulting from the sale and process- ing of timber sold. A survey could also help confirm the location and types of facilities that were used as well as provide more specific information on the use of subcontractors. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 31 Monitoring Question 3: Local Capture of Work including Direct and Indirect Economic Effects Did stewardship contracts generate jobs in the local community? If yes, what were the sectors that were directly and indirectly economically impacted by stewardship activities? Approach Database used: Forest Service Timber Information Manage- ment System (TIM) To model the direct economic effect of timber harvest, we first summarized the timber sale volume from the stewardship timber sales in TIM data by national for- est and federal fiscal year for the years 2014-2023. We then calculated the jobs and income supported by the harvesting and processing of the material sold. We applied the Forest Service tools and standard prac- tices to calculate the jobs and income in the logging sector and primary wood processing sectors. These economic impacts represent the “direct” effects of timber sales and do not include the economic activ- ity associated with supplies and services purchased by logging companies or mills (typically referred to as “indirect effects”) or the economic activity from em- ployees spending their paychecks (typically referred to as “indirect effects”). For additional details see Ap- pendix C: Modeling Direct Economic Effects. Monitoring baseline Previous research and monitoring A key perceived outcome of stewardship contracting is the generation of economic activity in local com- munities (Pinchot Institute for Conservation 2008). Case studies demonstrate that stewardship contract- ing projects create or support local employment op- portunities (Lucas et al. 2017; Daniels et al. 2018; Hausbeck 2007; Kerkvliet 2010; Bennett et al. 2015; White 2018). Because stewardship contracting often involves a variety of activities, it generates economic activity across a broader range of sectors than tim- ber harvest or service contracting alone (Daniels et al. 2018; Kerkvliet 2010). Studies commonly use eco- nomic models such as IMPLAN to describe how stew- ardship activities (e.g., timber sales and service work) generate economic activity in the broader economy (e.g. Daniels et al. 2018). In this analysis, we did not estimate the broader eco- nomic activity (i.e., complete IMPLAN modeling) from A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 32 stewardship timber sales. Whereas other monitoring studies are typically focused on estimating economic activity within a single impact area (often an area nearby the national forest) we were focused on com- paring outcomes across the three concentric proximi- ties to the forest—local, somewhat local, and nonlo- cal—that were increasingly large. Larger geographic areas almost always have more integrated economies and a larger labor pool, all else being equal. As a re- sult, any difference in the broader economic activity among our concentric proximities would reflect dif- ferences in the scale of the economy rather than any actionable characteristics of the stewardship sales of the forest. To avoid this economic scale issue, we focus on the economic activity in the sectors most closely tied to timber sales. Economic impacts from timber sales are typically concentrated in the sectors involved in har- vesting and processing timber, including sawmills, logging companies, wood preservation, and residue users (Kerkvliet 2010). For example, in 2014, the Mal- heur 10-Year Stewardship Contract supported 43 jobs in harvesting and restoration activities, 43 jobs in business sales to restoration contractors, and 15 jobs in sawtimber processing at the local Grant County mill (Bennett et al. 2015). These numbers increased to 96 jobs in harvesting and restoration activities from 2015 to 2017 (White 2018). A study by Daniels et al. (2018) found that two projects in the Mount Hood National Forest supported 36 jobs in the surrounding counties from 2009 to 2011. The Clearwater Steward- ship Contract generated 148 full- and part-time jobs in eight Montana counties (Kerkvliet 2010). In its first year, the Malheur 10-Year Stewardship Contract sup- ported 101 private sector jobs in Grant County, with an estimated 268 jobs supported annually in Grant and Harney Counties from 2015 to 2017 (Bennett et al. 2015; White 2018). Fuels reduction programs may also utilize steward- ship contracting. Across five national forests, fuels re- duction programs supported 337 full-time jobs (Hjer- pe and Kim 2008). Fuels reduction programs in the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests had employ- ment multipliers of 1.46 and 1.45, respectively, sug- gesting that these programs create greater economic activity than the region’s primary industries of tour- ism and recreation (Hjerpe and Kim 2008). Sectors that commonly provide many of the inputs and services to those directly doing the steward- ship activities include power generation, wholesale trade, owner-occupied dwellings, banks, and real estate (Kerkvliet 2010). Fuels reduction programs indirectly impacted regional transportation and ser- vice industries and created another 151 full-time jobs spurred by indirect economic activity in fiscal year 2005 (Hjerpe and Kim 2008) A more recent analysis found that in FY 2017, activities from the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) provided approximately 960 full- and part-time jobs and 50 million in regional labor income (Hjerpe et al. 2021). A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 33 Secondary data analysis (2014-2023) Across all regions, stewardship contract sales sup- ported an average of 1,863 jobs per year. The jobs associated with timber sales to somewhat local and non-local businesses averaged 1,440 and 1,038 per year respectively. Figure 12 shows the breakdown of job locality for each Forest Service administrative region. Stewardship timber sales within the Pacific Northwest Region (Forest Service R6) supported the greatest total number of jobs (n = 6,335), and the highest percentage of jobs (53%) were associated with sales to businesses local to the forest relative to other regions. In contrast, the Southwestern region (Forest Service R3) had the smallest percentage of jobs associated with timber sales to businesses local to the forest (29%). Figure 11 Total local, somewhat local, and non-local jobs for all USFS regions (2014-2023). 10,376 Non-local jobs 18,630 Local jobs 14,402 Somewhat local jobs Figure 12 Total number of stewardship jobs from timber sales volume according to locality and administrative region Pacific Northwest (Forest Service R6) Pacific Southwest (Forest Service R5) Eastern (Forest Service R9) Southern (Forest Service R8) Rocky Mountain (Forest Service R2) Southwestern (Forest Service R3) Northern (Forest Service R1) Intermountain (Forest Service R4) Alaska (Forest Service R10) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Ad m in is tr at iv e Re gi on Number of Jobs A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 34 Average income (wages) per stewardship job also varied between regions. The average estimated in- come per job ranged from $35,174 (Forest Service R3) to $65,899 (Forest Service R6). Figure 13 shows the average estimated income per job according to each region. On average, employees directly engaged in harvesting and processing the material sold in stew- ardship timber sales received between about $35,000 and $68,000 in income from the work associated with the sales. Those regions with the highest aver- age incomes (e.g. Forest Service R6 and Forest Service R8) likely have higher incomes because much of the timber sold in those regions is processed in mills pro- ducing construction products, such as lumber or ply- wood/orientated strand board, and offering relatively high wages. Regions with lower average incomes are likely to see more of their stewardship sale material processed in post and pole, fuelwood, or bioenergy facilities. Figure 13 Average income per stewardship job (in thousands of dollars) Pacific NW (Forest Service R6) Southern (Forest Service R8) Pacific Southwest (Forest Service R5) Northern (Forest Service R1) Eastern (Forest Service R9) Intermountain (Forest Service R4) Rocky Mountain (Forest Service R2) Alaska (Forest Service R10) Southwestern (Forest Service R3) $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 Ad m in is tr at iv e Re gi on Average income per job (thousands) A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 35 Considerations for Phase 2 monitoring • Coordination with the Forest Service Policy Office economists could provide annual estimates of economic activity associated with stewardship timber sales as part of that Office’s ongoing annual reporting. • Pair economic effects modeling with national-level stewardship contractor surveys to enhance under- standing of wood products being manufactured and types of activities resulting from service com- ponents of the contracts. • The process used here is replicable in future years given new data on stewardship timber sales and any updates to the assumptions and coefficients used in this analysis. Our analysis of direct economic effects from stew- ardship timber sales was limited by the lack of infor- mation on the specific product classes in each sale or types of processing facilities receiving the material. Our estimates reflect forest and regional assumptions about product type and processing and likely do not reflect specific nuances in these timber sales. There- fore, to refine the accuracy of this model, we recom- mend combining this approach with primary data collection (proposed above for Monitoring Question 2) that details sale volumes by product class and gath- ers additional information on the processing facility destinations of material harvested in stewardship projects. We encountered similar limitations in our attempts to calculate the direct economic effects of steward- ship service work. Economic model inputs require a classification of the type of stewardship work ac- tivities conducted along with the total dollar amount invested in those activities. To the best of our knowl- edge, these two variables do not exist in one dataset maintained by the Forest Service. To resolve this is- sue, we attempted to link FACTS stewardship activ- ity data to IRTC and IRSC data from the TIM data- base using deterministic methods by matching the “date accomplished” and the ranger district place of performance (USDA Forest Service 2024). However, this method matched less than 70% of the activities to their associated IRTC/IRSC contracts and less than 60% of IRTC and IRSCs to their activities. Given this is- sue, we did not present results for economic effects of service work in this baseline assessment. Pairing this secondary data analysis with primary data collection proposed above (Monitoring Question 1) could resolve this issue since it would allow for new data collection on how service activities relate to stewardship projects and associated timber sales. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 36 Monitoring Question 4: Stewardship Contracting Businesses and Organizations What businesses and organizations are engaging in stewardship contracting? Approach Database used: Forest Service Timber Information Manage- ment System (TIM), Forest Service agreement data Contractors We used TIM data to create stewardship timber sale profiles for entities entering into stewardship con- tracts. Profiles summarize the total number of stew- ardship contracts, total timber volume, total timber sale bid and service bid amounts, as well as the num- ber of ranger districts where each contractor worked. Agreement Cooperators We used Forest Service agreement data to analyze the types of cooperators that were involved in land management decisions with the Forest Service (Fig- ure 14). Stewardship agreements were classified by cooperator type (e.g., county government, Indian/ Na- tive American Tribal government, nonprofit, etc.). Monitoring baseline Previous research and monitoring Labor-intensive forestry contracts within the Forest Service often utilize stewardship contracting. Most labor-intensive forestry contracts (including some stewardship contracts) awarded by the Forest Service between 2001 to 2020 went to contractors performing forest fire suppression and pre-suppression, followed by conservation and non-construction forest and range improvement (Deak et al. 2023). Most contracts (including stewardship and non-stewardship types) were awarded to businesses that were non-minority- owned and ineligible for small business set-asides, while minority-owned businesses comprised only 9.3% of the businesses in the dataset but were award- ed 16.1% of contracts (Deak et al. 2023). Secondary data analysis (2014-2023) TIM data show that stewardship contracts went to 410 unique businesses and organizations between 2014 and 2023 (see Appendix D for a full list of businesses and organizations entering into Forest Service stew- ardship timber contracts for fiscal years 2014-2023). Some entities had multiple contracts across multiple different ranger districts, national forests, and re- gions. For example, the National Wild Turkey Federa- tion had 59 stewardship contracts between 2014 and 2023 across six different regions, 26 national forests, and 33 districts. However, Vaagen Brothers Lumber, Inc., followed by Iron Triangle, LLC, had stewardship contracts with the highest total volume (361 MMBF and 258 MMBF respectively). While Vaagen Brothers Lumber contracted with five different ranger districts on three national forests traveling a mean distance of 90 miles from their place of business to the activ- ity location, Iron Triangle contracted with only three districts on a single forest and traveled a mean dis- tance of 40 miles. Sierra Pacific ranked among the top five contractors in terms of their number of contracts, total timber volume purchased, total timber volume purchased locally, and the number of national forests with which they contracted (Table 6). Table 6 Contractors ranked by (A) number of contracts, (B) timber volume, (C) timber sale bid value, (D) bid for services value, (E) local volume as percent of total volume, (F) number of national forests contractor is contracting with, (G) Number and type of contract (IRTC, IRSC), and (H) contractor’s headquarter location. Contractor name A Number of contracts B Timber volume (MMBF) C Timber sale bid value (millions) D Bid for services value (millions) E Local volume as percent of total volume F Number of national forests G Number and type of contract H Headquarter location total / rank total / rank total / rank total / rank total / rank total / rank IRTC / IRSC State National Wild Turkey Federation 59 / 1 225 / 5 $9.5 / 12 $42.4 / 2 0% / 234* 26 / 1 0 / 3 SC Nature Conservancy 37 / 2 219 / 6 $27.8 / 4 $25.4 / 4 8% / 48* 11 / 3 8 / 0 Multiple Sierra Pacific Industries 34 / 3 237 / 4 $16.4 / 6 $6.7 / 26 56% / 4 9 / 5 34 / 0 CA, OR, WA Tri Star Logging 27 / 4 155 / 10 $3.1 / 34 $1.1 / 83 72% / 5 2 / 52 27 / 0 AZ Biewer Forest Management 26 / 5 96 / 17 $11.4 / 9 $1.8 / 68 54% / 9 2 / 49 26 / 0 MI National Forest Foundation 26 / 6 117 / 14 $1.1 / 88 $68.6 / 1 0% / 235* 6 / 7 0 / 0 MT JW Bamford 24 / 8 137 / 13 $3.9 / 29 $38.0 / 3 29% / 15 8 / 4 7 / 17 WA Vaagen Brothers Lumber 22 / 10 361 / 1 $36.7 / 2 $10.4 / 15 97% / 1 3 / 21 11/ 11 OR IFG Timber 20 / 11 256 / 3 $38.7 / 1 $11.3 / 12 35% / 6 5 / 10 22 / 0 ID, MT The Mule Deer Foundation 20 / 14 63 / 24 $2.7 / 39 $8.4 / 18 0% / 238* 12 / 2 0 / 0 UT Interfor US* 17 / 19 168 / 9 $16.0 / 7 $4.7 / 36 86% / 3 4 / 15 17 / 0 CA Iron Triangle 16 / 22 258 / 2 $9.8 / 11 $9.8 / 11 62% / 2 1 / 80 0 / 16 PA Boise Cascade Wood Products 16 / 23 182 / 8 $20.0 / 5 $20.0 / 5 42% / 7 6 / 8 14 / 2 OR, WA B and G Logging & Construction 15 / 25 152 / 11 $35.0 / 3 $35. 0 / 3 34% / 8 2 / 37 15 / 0 OR The Ruffed Grouse Society 10 / 37 23 / 71 $1.9 / 53 $1.9 / 53 0% / 244* 8 / 6 0 / 0 OR, WA Great Basin Institute 7 / 52 42 / 35 $0.7 / 124 $0.7 / 124 30% / 61 3 / 20 0 / 0 NV *Nationally headquartered non-profits often sub-contract with local contractors, but data on these subcontracts is not available. 37 A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 38 Across all regions, most cooperators were nonprofits other than an institution of higher education (Figure 14). Although some nonprofits were local organiza- tions, many were not. Local governments were the next common cooperator type, followed by state, tribal, and for-profit organizations. Figure 14 Total number of agreements and cooperator types by forest service region. *Local government includes city, county, township, or independent school district; nonprofits do not distinguish between those with or without 501c3 status. Boise City Chicago Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Los Angeles Denver Bridgeport Wilmington Washington Birmingham Phoenix Little Rock Louisville New Orleans Portland Baltimore Boston Detroit Jacksonville Atlanta Albuquerque New York Charlotte Fargo Columbus Virginia Beach Seattle Huntington Milwaukee Cheyenne Oklahoma City Portland Philadelphia Providence Charleston Sioux Falls Minneapolis Jackson Kansas City Billings Omaha Las Vegas Manchester Newark Nashville Houston Salt Lake City Burlington San Francisco Anchorage Honolulu R10: Alaska R9 : Eastern Region R8: Southern Region R6: Pacific Northwest Region R5: Pacific Southwest Region R4: Intermountain Region R3: Southwestern Region R2: Rocky Mountain Region R1: Northern Region Nonprofit Local government Tribal government For-profit organization State government Administrative boundary Major cities Major rivers Interstates National forests 52 56 27 15 157 75 162 8 192 5 Washington Office Considerations for Phase 2 monitoring • Stewardship contractor profiles can be generated from secondary data sources such as TIM and compared with this baseline assessment. • Additional business and organization details could be gleaned from other secondary data sources to develop a more detailed understanding about entities engaging in stewardship contracting. • Pairing these secondary data analyses with a contractor survey could provide further under- standing of business and workforce demography. Secondary data analysis could be expanded to en- compass other data sources related to contractor businesses. Further, the businesses and business attributes identified through this analysis could inform a sampling and recruitment strategy for a survey of business owners. This primary data col- lection effort could supplement information from secondary sources. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 39 Monitoring Question 5: Contract and Management Efficiencies Are stewardship contracts more efficient for the Forest Service than conventional timber sales or service contracts? • Were there key factors that enabled work on the ground to be more efficient? • Did the stewardship contract reduce costs for the Forest Service relative to estimated costs for conventional contracts? Approach Database used: Forest Service Forest Activity Tracking Sys- tem (FACTS) database4 We were unable to assess on the ground management efficiencies or perceptions about them through exist- ing secondary datasets. However, we were able to pro- vide some evaluation of stewardship activity costs. Monitoring baseline Previous research and monitoring Management efficiencies Qualitative survey- and interview- based studies indi- cate that some participants in stewardship contract- ing (Forest Service personnel, partner organizations, and contractors) consider it to be more efficient than conventional timber sales or service contracts for ac- complishing on-the-ground work (Pinchot Institute for Conservation 2008, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014; United States Government Accountability Office 2008; Mac- Cleery 2004; Davis 2021; Cowan et al. 2022). However, these participants could have views of efficiency that include time factors rather than simply cost. Approxi- mately 44% of respondents from a nationwide survey of Forest Service personnel, partner organizations, and local contractors involved in stewardship con- tracting projects described stewardship contracting as a tool to accomplish more work on the ground, with non-agency respondents more often suggesting it is the best available approach to accomplish work on the ground (Pinchot Institute for Conservation 2008). Participants of stewardship contracting view on-the-ground work as both a defining feature and one of the primary outcomes of stewardship con- tracting. For three consecutive years, “on-the-ground work” was one of the top two most frequently cited outcomes of stewardship contracting in surveys con- ducted by the Pinchot Institute from 2011 to 2013 (The other benefit was “specific project outcomes.”) (Pinchot Institute for Conservation 2012b, 2013, 2014). The primary motivation reported for partici-4 https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 40 pation in future stewardship contracting projects was its perceived efficiency in accomplishing more work relative to other contracting approaches (Pin- chot Institute for Conservation 2013). It is important to note, however, that most of these studies to date only account for the perspectives of people involved in stewardship contracting mechanisms, but not nec- essarily in comparison to other approaches. This con- sideration should inform Phase 2 monitoring. The goods-for-services authority and reduced over- head costs are perceived as key mechanisms enabling the achievement of more work on the ground (United States Government Accountability Office 2008; Mac- Cleery 2004; Davis 2021). In surveys and interviews with Forest Service and BLM personnel, respondents noted that the authority to exchange forest products for service work enabled agency officials to accomplish work that would otherwise be delayed or unexecuted due to funding constraints (United States Government Accountability Office 2008; MacCleery 2004). Further, some respondents noted that reduced overhead costs for agency and partners, achieved by combining work into a single contract and bypassing the use of Knut- son-Vandenberg funds, allowed more funding to be used on the ground (Davis 2021; MacCleery 2004). Cost efficiencies Existing literature suggests that stewardship con- tracting additionally reduces costs by bundling work into a single contract (United States Government Ac- countability Office 2008; MacCleery 2004; Mattor and Cheng 2015). This decreases net cost per unit area due to reduced solicitation, administrative, and contract expenses (United States Government Accountability Office 2008; MacCleery 2004). Agency staff save time and money developing, advertising, and implement- ing a single stewardship contract as compared to mul- tiple timber sale and service contracts. A comparative analysis of four stewardship contracting projects dem- onstrated cost reduction by allowing timber sale and service work to be completed simultaneously (Mat- tor and Cheng 2015). In turn, net cost per unit area is decreased due to reduced solicitation, administrative, and contract expenses (United States Government Ac- countability Office 2008; MacCleery 2004). Considerations for Phase 2 monitoring • Better define and evaluate economic and process efficiencies as part of proposed sampling of proj- ect-level details for Phase 2. Although FACTS stewardship activity data do often list cost per unit (usually acres or miles), cost vari- ables are sometimes missing. An examination of the data suggests that cost data may actually refer to more than one activity on a project (perhaps all activities, in some cases). This means that the costs calculated for a specific treatment type (e.g thinning) may reflect ad- ditional treatment activities (e.g. survey project prep) that we are unable to parse from the data. Although we were able to find previous analysis of treatment costs for non-stewardship projects, these studies are often place-specific and do not offer national-level cost ranges. In addition, because previous studies provided their own definitions for particular activities or sets of activities, it is often difficult to find costs for specific FACTS stewardship activities. This question might best be answered through pri- mary data collection from Forest Service personnel and stewardship partners. This type of data collec- tion would be most efficient as part of a systematically sampled project-level approach (proposed above). This analysis would require additional data collection on comparable non-stewardship activities implemented by the same national forest or ranger district. Another potentially informative method could be a systematic review of documents associated with contracting pro- cesses (i.e. contracts and payment documentation). Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Research project overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Summary of key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Approach for Phase 2. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Part 1 Findings: Main Themes Across States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Goals for Shared Stewardship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Cross-boundary efforts that precede Shared Stewardship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Progress to date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Prioritization processes under Shared Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Opportunities and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Outstanding questions and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Discussion and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Summary of research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Comparing main findings from Phase 1 and Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Factors affecting future success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Part 2 Findings: State-Level Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 41 Monitoring Question 6: Reduced Litigation How does litigation and public concern of stewardship projects compare to similar timber sales and service contracts? Approach Database used: Forest Service Forest Activity Tracking Sys- tem (FACTS) database5; Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System (PALS)6 We assessed which stewardship contracts were associ- ated with projects litigated during the planning phase. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Forest Service to assess the potential environmental impacts and seek public input on alternative manage- ment actions and to document its decisions as part of the planning process. Ideally, NEPA decisions align with public interests, but when decisions are chal- lenged in court (i.e. litigated) planning and project implementation can be delayed. To assess how often NEPA decisions involving stew- ardship contracts or agreements were litigated in comparison to NEPA decisions that did not involve stewardship contracts or agreements, we relied on FACTS timber harvest data which contains informa- tion linking individual timber harvest units with their associated timber sales and NEPA decisions. This information within FACTS included project name and a unique identification number matching NEPA decisions recorded in the Planning, Appeals, and Liti- gation System (PALS) (USDA Forest Service 2024). Al- though the FACTS timber harvest data lacks a steward- ship indicator, we were able to identify stewardship projects through the timber sale name or implementa- tion project name which often contain terms associ- ated with stewardship (e.g. Stewardship, Stew, STWD, IRTC, IRSC). Using the NEPA project name and ID associated with each timber harvest, we linked the FACTS data with a previously curated dataset from the Forest Service’s Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System (PALS) (USDA Forest Service 2024; Fleischman et al. 2020; 2022). Since 2005, the Forest Service has used PALS to track and record all decisions made by the agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The cu- rated PALS dataset documents NEPA decisions and liti- gation for completed land management projects con- ducted by the Forest Service between 2005 and 2021 (Fleischman 2020; 2022). 5 https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php 6 US Forest Service Planning, Appeals, and Litigation Data on NEPA compliance, 2005-2021 https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php https://doi.org/10.13020/3xfe-2m18 A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 42 Monitoring baseline Previous research and monitoring Some research has found or suggested that in- creased public trust may prompt reduced litiga- tion, enabling work to be accomplished on a faster timeline (United States Government Accountabil- ity Office 2008; Lucas et al. 2017; Moseley and Charnley 2014). Pennick McIver and Becker (2021) found evidence of greater planning efficiency, in- creased number of acres treated, and accomplish- ment of more diverse objectives, when using a more collaborative approach. There is therefore some evidence that land management agencies may not have to sacrifice efficiency for greater public involvement with these approaches. Across four case studies of fire-prone national forests and their surrounding communities in Oregon, Wash- ington, and Northern California, timber harvest was less frequently litigated when packaged in a stewardship contract with the goal of hazardous fuel reduction than in a traditional timber sale (Moseley and Charnley 2014). Interviews with stakeholders associated with the White Mountain Stewardship Contract indicate that the legal chal- lenges that typically slow or prevent harvest op- erations were not present throughout the duration of the stewardship contract (Lucas et al. 2017). However, Pennick-McIver and Becker found no statistical difference in the probability of appeals or litigation for collaboratively developed projects as compared to traditional projects. Secondary Data Analysis (2014-2023) We were able to link approximately 10,030 out of 11,246 individual timber sales within FACTS Timber Harvest data to their corresponding NEPA project ID within the PALS dataset processed by Fleischman et al (2020). From these 10,030, we identified 2,025 as being associated with stewardship contracts. We es- timate that our methods failed to link approximately eight percent of the timber harvest units from FACTS (85,300 out of 92,700 harvest units). We believe at least some of these projects are linked to NEPA deci- sions that either pre-date the PALS dataset (i.e. prior to 2005) or to NEPA projects that were not completed by 2021. We also note here a discrepancy between the FACTS Timber Harvest data and TIM data, for which timber sales during the 2014-2023 federal fiscal years totaled 10,815 and the number of those sales involving stewardship contracts or agreements was 1,596. Clerical errors within the FACTS data like- ly resulted in misattribution of some harvest units to sales, leading to a slight overcount of timber sales broadly. Given these issues, we suggest that the re- sults of this analysis be taken with caution. We found that four percent of NEPA decisions involving timber sales awarded in federal fis- cal years 2014-2023 were litigated regardless of whether or not they involved stewardship con- tracts or agreements. In other words, NEPA de- cisions that involve stewardship contracting or agreements were equally as likely to be litigated as projects that did not involve the use of steward- ship contracting or agreements. However, this liti- gation rate varied by Forest Service Region (Table 8). For example, Region 1 (Northern Region) had the highest litigation rate overall with 13 percent of NEPA decisions involving stewardship contract- ing, but this rate was comparable to that of NEPA decisions not involving stewardship contracts or agreements (15 percent). Region 6 (Pacific North- west Region) had a higher rate of litigation for stewardship projects at 6 percent versus 2 percent for those involving non-stewardship timber sales. A Social and Economic Monitoring Plan and Baseline Assessment of the USDA Forest Service’s Stewardship Program (2014-2023) 43 Table 8 NEPA projects litigated in each administrative region Administrative Region Stewardship Contract Conventional Contract NEPA projects litigated / % NEPA projects litigated / % R1: Northern Region 6 out of 45 / 13% 35 out of 226 / 15% R2: Rocky Mountain Region 2 out of 61 / 3% 3 out of 228 / 1% R3: Southwestern Region 1 out of 22 / 5% 5 out of 89 / 6% R4: Intermountain Region 0 out of 14 / 0% 3 out of 150 / 2% R5: Pacific Southwest Region 5 out of 103 / 5% 23 out of 231 / 10% R6: Pacific Northwest Region 9 out of 141 / 6% 7 out of 329 / 2% R7: Southern Region 0 out of 96 / 0% 1 out of 477 / 0% R8: Eastern Region 3 out of 190 / 2% 6 out of 372 / 2% R9: Alaska Region 0 out of 2 / 0% 1 out of 23 / 4% Considerations for Phase 2 monitoring • Baseline information presented in this report could help guide a sampling strategy for Phase 2 project- level analyses to collect primary data relate