United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-832

January 2012

Socioeconomic Assessment 

of Forest Service American 

Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act Projects: Key Findings 

and Lessons Learned

Susan Charnley, Pamela Jakes, and John Schelhas
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national 

grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to 

a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Susan Charnley is a research social scientist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW 

Main Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205; Pamela Jakes is a research forester, 

Northern Research Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108; and John Schelhas

is a research forester, Southern Research Station, 320 Green St., Athens, GA 30602.

Cover photographs: A, B, D, E, and F, by Susan Charnley; C, by Jessi Kershner; 

G, by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; H, by Corrine L. Kegel.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H
Socioeconomic Assessment 

of Forest Service American 

Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act Projects: Key Findings and 

Lessons Learned

Susan Charnley, Pamela Jakes, and John Schelhas

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-832

January 2012
Abstract

Charnley, Susan; Jakes, Pamela; Schelhas, John. 2012. Socioeconomic assessment 

of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: key findings 

and lessons learned. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-832. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 44 p.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) aimed to 

create jobs and promote economic growth while addressing the Nation’s social and 

environmental needs. The USDA Forest Service received $1.15 billion in economic 

recovery funding. This report contains key findings and lessons learned from a 

socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service Recovery Act projects. The assessment 

examines how Forest Service economic recovery projects at eight case-study locations 

around the United States are contributing to socioeconomic well-being in rural counties 

affected by the economic recession of 2007–2009. It also investigates how Forest Service mission-related work can be accomplished in a manner that creates local community development opportunities. This report is a companion to general technical report 

PNW-GTR-831, which contains the full case-study reports. We find that Forest Service 

projects were successful in meeting several goals of the act. Recovery Act projects also 

illustrate how Forest Service investments in creating local economic opportunity can 

have far-reaching social and economic benefits for communities, as well as positive 

outcomes for the agency in meeting its goals. 

Keywords: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, national forests, rural 

communities, economic development, socioeconomic assessment.
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Background 

9 Key Finding 1: Local Context Matters 

9 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona

12 Evergreen Forest Products Dry Kiln and Restacker, Idaho

14 Lesson Learned

14 Key Finding 2: Short-Term and Seasonal Jobs Make a Difference

14 Huron Fuels Treatment Project, Michigan

15 Invasive Species Control in Alabama and North Carolina

16 California’s North Coast—Trail Maintenance, Six Rivers National Forest

17 Lesson Learned

17 Key Finding 3: More Jobs Are Created and Retained Than Are Counted

18 California’s North Coast—Blue Lake Biomass Power Plant

18 Evergreen Forest Products Dry Kiln and Restacker, Idaho

19 Route of the Olympian, Montana

20 Lesson Learned

20 Key Finding 4: Project Benefits Are Felt in Target Counties and Beyond

21 California’s North Coast—Redwood Sciences Lab

21 Route of the Olympian, Montana

22 Cheoah River Nonnative Invasive Plant Control, North Carolina

22 Lesson Learned

23 Key Finding 5: Individual Employees Make a Difference

23 Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Hazardous Fuel Reduction, Oregon

24 California’s North Coast— Six Rivers National Forest Roadside Brush Removal 

25 Lesson Learned

26 Key Finding 6: The Forest Service Builds on Old Partnerships and 

 Develops New Ones

26 Route of the Olympian, Montana

27 Cheoah River Nonnative Invasive Plant Control, North Carolina

28 Lesson Learned
28 Key Finding 7: High Funding Levels Create Opportunities for 

 Larger and More Strategic Projects

28 Capital Improvement and Maintenance

29 Ecosystem Restoration

30 Lesson Learned

30 Key Finding 8: Tradeoffs Are Inevitable

31 Developing Projects Quickly vs. Developing Them Collaboratively

31 Working With Existing Partners vs. Developing New Relationships and 

Project Beneficiaries

32 Making Large Awards to Fewer Recipients vs. Making Numerous Smaller 

 Awards to a Greater Number of Recipients

33 Creating Many Short-Term Jobs vs. Creating Fewer Longer-Term Jobs

33 Maximizing Local Community Benefit vs. Maximizing Project Efficiency 

 and Cost-Effectiveness for the Agency

34 Lesson Learned

35 Key Finding 9: Expect the Unexpected

35 Huron Fuels Treatment, Michigan

36 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona

37 Lesson Learned

37 Key Finding 10: Projects Meet Recovery Act Goals, Create Community 

Benefits, and Help the Forest Service

38 Lesson Learned

39 Acknowledgments

39 Metric Equivalents

39 References

42 Appendix
1

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Introduction

This report contains key findings and lessons learned from 

a socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (hereafter Recovery Act) 

projects. It examines the contributions of these projects to 

the well-being of people residing in rural counties affected 

by the economic recession that began in the United States 

in 2007 and was declared over in 2009. The assessment is 

important for several reasons. People have been eager to 

know whether and to what degree the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package has been effective. 

Although this study does not address this broad topic, it 

does provide insight into some of the ways the stimulus 

package has helped people affected by the recession. 

Federal agencies have been tracking the number of jobs 

created and retained with stimulus funding as one measure 

of the Recovery Act’s success. But alone, the number of 

jobs created or retained tells a limited story. This socioeconomic assessment looks at a much wider array of social and 

economic benefits associated with Recovery Act jobs as a 

way of evaluating its contributions in communities affected 

by the recession.

The Recovery Act directed the Forest Service to make 

local community benefit a priority in implementing project 

work. Project decisions—including what projects to fund, 

where and how the benefits would be distributed, and to 

whom—were strongly influenced by consideration of local 

economic conditions and the priority placed on alleviating 

economic distress. This direction has created an opportunity to examine how successful the Forest Service has been 

in creating socioeconomic benefits for local communities 

while carrying out mission-related work, and what lessons 

might be learned about how to increase local community 

benefits associated with project work in the future, once 

recovery funds are spent. Doing so is consistent with the 

Secretary of Agriculture’s vision for forestry: 

“Forests help generate rural wealth through recreation and tourism, through the creation of green 

jobs, and through the production of wood products 

and energy....We must work towards a shared 

vision—a vision that conserves our forests and 

the vital resources important to our survival while 

wisely respecting the need for a forest economy 

that creates jobs and vibrant rural communities” 

(Vilsack 2009).

findings and lessons reported here are based on 

research that occurred in eight case-study locations around 

the country (fig. 1) by a team of 11 Forest Service and 

university social scientists. This research focused on early 

projects, most of which had not been completed at the time 

that field work was done. The full case-study reports are 

available in Charnley et al. (2011). This report summarizes 

10 key findings from the case studies, drawing on examples 

from these early cases to illustrate the findings (table 1). It 

also offers lessons learned for better linking Forest Service 

mission-related work to rural community development 

opportunities in the future. Because the projects were 

ongoing at the time of the study, the findings are based 

on short-term project outcomes, as well as anticipated 

outcomes. Documenting longer term and broader societal 

impacts, while likely to be significant, is beyond the scope 

of this research effort.

Background

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed by 

Congress in February 2009, made $787 billion in federal 

funding available to provide a stimulus to the American 

economy, which was suffering from a recession that began 

in 2007. The act had five goals: 

• Preserve and create jobs and promote 

economic recovery.

• Assist those most affected by the recession.

• Increase economic efficiency by spurring 

technological advances in science and health.

• Invest in transportation, environmental protection, 

and other infrastructure that will provide long-term 

economic benefits.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Geospatial Service and Technology Center, USDA Forest Service

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

RI

C O K S

U T

DE

N M

MD

K Y

M S

LA

F L

M T

I D

N D

S D W I NH

VT

W Y I A

N E

I L

P A

M I

N V

I N

O H

M A

C T

W V M O

N J

V A O K

T N

A R

A L

N C

S C

G A

C A

A Z

T X

O R

M N

N Y

W A

M E

G U L F O F M E X I C O

P A C I F I C

O

C

E

A N

A

T L A

N

T I C

O C

E A N

National forests and grasslands

^ Case-study locations o

• Stabilize state and local government budgets in 

order to minimize reductions in essential services 

and counterproductive state and local tax increases.

Recovery Act funds were distributed in three categories: tax benefits, entitlements, and contracts-grantsloans. The U.S. Department of Agriculture received about 

$28 billion ($28,025,940,000) in Recovery Act money, of 

which the U.S. Forest Service received $1.15 billion, or 4 

percent (fig. 2). For an agency whose annual budget has 

averaged around $5 billion in recent years (http://www.

fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/), this was a significant infusion of 

funds. To create an economic stimulus, the Forest Service 

identified projects around the country on the national 

forests and grasslands; on state, private, and tribal lands; 

and in communities to be supported with recovery funds. 

To promote rapid job creation, the deadline for obligating 

money for these projects was September 30, 2010; the 

deadline for spending all of the money and completing the 

projects is September 30, 2015. The range of Forest Service 

economic recovery funding by state is shown in figure 3.

The agency’s top priority in choosing projects for funding was to help people most affected by the recent economic 

recession by creating jobs in economically distressed 

counties. On the basis of four employment indicators, every 

county in the United States was assigned an economic 

distress ranking on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the 

most distress (USDA FS 2009a). Projects were targeted to 

those counties with the highest economic distress rankings, 

as well as the greatest risk of fire, insect outbreaks, and 

disease in forests within their boundaries. In line with Forest Service goals, selected projects were designed to retain 

Figure 1—Location of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act case studies where the socioeconomic assessment 

was conducted.
3

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Table 1—Ten key findings from the socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act projects

Number Key finding Description

1 Local context matters Projects that were aligned with community needs and community capacity 

were more likely to create local community benefits.

2 Short-term and seasonal Many Recovery Act jobs were short term or seasonal in nature, but were 

 jobs make a difference more than just a bridge or life raft to help people get through hard times; 

the jobs had greater social and economic benefits.

3 More jobs are created and The jobs impacts of Forest Service Recovery Act projects are greater than 

 retained than are counted the numbers reported.

4 Project benefits are felt in Some funding recipients were based in the counties where their projects 

target counties and beyond were located, others were not; in either case, target counties benefitted.

5 Individual employees make Forest Service employees developed a number of strategies for increasing 

a difference the socioeconomic benefits of Recovery Act projects to local communities.

6 The Forest Service builds Relationship building between the Forest Service and project recipients and 

 on old partnerships and stakeholders has been an important outcome of the Recovery Act. 

 develops new ones

7 High funding levels create Economic recovery funds made it possible to accomplish work of a type and 

 opportunities for larger at a scale that would not have happened otherwise, with important social 

and more strategic projects and environmental benefits.

8 Tradeoffs are inevitable The way in which Recovery Act projects were developed, administered, and 

 implemented sometimes required making tradeoffs between maximizing 

local community benefits and meeting other agency objectives and 

 requirements.

9 Expect the unexpected Recovery Act projects had unintended and unexpected consequences for the 

 Forest Service, with implications for local communities and the agency— 

 some positive, some negative.

10 Projects meet Recovery Act Forest Service economic recovery projects helped meet the goals of the 

 goals, create community Recovery Act and demonstrated that Forest Service investments in rural 

benefits, and help the wealth creation can have far-reaching social and economic benefits for com-

 Forest Service munities, as well as positive outcomes for the agency in meeting its goals.

Figure 2—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, by agency. Total = $28,025,940,000 (USDA 2011).

Forest Service

4% Food and Nutrition Service

Rural Development

Forest Service

Agricultural Disaster Assistance 

 Transition

Natural Resources Conservation 

 Service

Foreign Agricultural Service

Agricultural Research Service

Farm Service Agency

Departmental administration
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Alaska

Puerto Rico,

U.S. Virgin Islands

Hawaii

Recovery Act funding released 

by state (millions of dollars)

California

Arizona

New

Mexico

Guam

No funding

<10

10–25

25.1–50

50.1–100

>100

o

Nevada

Oregon

Washington

Idaho

Utah

Colorado

Wyoming

Montana

North

Dakota

South

Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas

Oklahoma

Texas

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

Arkansas

Wisconsin

Illinois Indiana

Ohio

Kentucky

Tennessee

Louisiana

Pennsylvania

New York

Virginia

North

Carolina

South

Carolina

Georgia Miss. Alabama

Vt.

N.H.

Maine

Mass.

Conn. R.I.

Del.

N.J.

W.V.

Florida

Md.

Figure 3—Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding amounts released by state, as of September 2009. Source: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Economic Recovery Team. Funding Released to Date: 9/8/09 spreadsheet.

or create jobs in priority locations and meet as many of the 

following criteria as possible: (1) help sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands; (2) invest in wood-to-energy or biomass projects, or 

other initiatives that will help transform rural and urban 

economies; (3) contribute to sustainable agency operations; 

(4) leverage other resources to create more jobs; and (5) be 

sustainable over the long term (USDA FS 2010). 

In total, 705 Forest Service economic recovery projects 

were approved (USDA FS 2011a). These projects fell into 

two general categories—wildland fire management (WFM), 

including fuels reduction and forest health protection; and 

capital improvement and maintenance (CIM).1 The act 

stipulated that half of the $500 million appropriated for 

WFM projects be spent on federal lands, and half on state 

and private forest lands. The act also targeted up to $50 

million of this total for wood-to-energy grants to promote 

biomass utilization from federal, state, and private lands. 

Accordingly, 160 projects have been funded on federal 

lands, and 138 on state and private lands. Figure 4 shows the 

amount of WFM funding spent on different project types. 

The remaining $650 million of Forest Service economic 

recovery funding was appropriated for CIM projects, 

1

 The Department of Agriculture’s recovery plans for these funds 

are available at http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/agency/

reporting/agency_reporting5.aspx?agency_code=12.
5

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Figure 4—Wildland Fire Management funds allocated, by project type (total = $500 million). 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Performance Accountability System.

Figure 5—Capital Improvement and Maintenance funds allocated, by project type (total = $650 million). 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Performance Accountability System.

$15,285,915 

(3%)

$24,644,583 

(4%)

$27,403,394 

(4%)

$99,255,459 

(15%)

$236,219,358 

(36%)

$247,192,385 

(38%)

Management and administrative oversight

Abandoned mine lands

Watershed restoration/

 ecosystem enhancement

Trail maintenance and decommissioning

Road maintenance and decommissioning

Facilities improvement, maintenance, 

 and renovation

$14,030,798 

(3%)

$122,764,329 

(24%)

$48,279,000 

(10%)

$314,776,051 

(63%)

Management and administrative oversight

Forest health

Wood to energy, biomass

Hazardous fuels treatment

supporting 407 of them. Figure 5 shows CIM spending by 

project type. 

Are these projects making a difference and helping 

accomplish the goals of the Recovery Act? The Forest 

Service has been tracking some accomplishment measures 

associated with WFM and CIM projects. These are displayed in table 2. All of these accomplishments represent 

investments in environmental protection and infrastructure 

that will potentially provide long-term social and economic 

benefits while supporting jobs in the short term. The only 

community socioeconomic measure of success tracked by 

the Forest Service (and other federal agencies that received 

economic recovery money) is the number of full-time 

equivalent (FTE) jobs (created or retained) paid for with 

economic recovery funds. These jobs are reported quarterly 

by funding recipients. For example, between October and 

December 2010, Forest Service recovery money funded 

6,172 FTEs. Figure 6 shows the number of FTEs the 
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Figure 6—Jobs created with Forest Service economic recovery funds, 2009–2010. 

Source: Recipient reporting data, Recovery.gov. FTE = Full time equivalent.

Table 2—Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project accomplishments as 

of January 2011

Accomplishment

Performance measure Reported (12/31/2009) Reported (1/31/2011)

Capital improvement and maintenance:

Road maintenance (miles) 4,285 14,861

Road decommissioning (miles) 0 460

Abandoned mine remediation (sites) 1 30

Trail maintenance (miles) 934 9,101

Related watershed restoration and ecosystem enhancement (acres) 13,652 53,279

Expected annual energy savings (dollars) $31,000 $176,730

Expected annual operation and maintenance cost change (dollars) $0 $1,419,854

Wildland fire management:

Hazardous fuels reduction, USFS lands (acres) 124,647 510,671

Hazardous fuels reduction, nonfederal lands (projects conducted) 310 847

Forest health protection and ecosystem improvements—invasive 18,782 162,367 

species treatments (acres)

Biomass utilization (green tons removed) 0 138,882

Forest vegetation established or improved (acres) 0 98,503

Note: By January 31, 2011, 203 of 705 projects had been completed, and Forest Service Recovery Act expenditures totaled $668 million, 

or 66 percent of the total (Carmical 2011).

Source: USDA FS 2011b.

agency funded between the time the act 

was passed and June 2011. In all, 27,773 

FTEs were funded during this period. 

The drop in job numbers during the first 

two quarters of 2011 is likely due in part 

to the seasonal nature of much of the 

work. However, the number of jobs and 

other performance measures tell only 

part of the story of how these projects are 

contributing to socioeconomic well-being 

in economically distressed counties while 

meeting other agency objectives.

Recognizing this fact, in late 2009 

Forest Service economic recovery 

executives requested that the agency’s 

Pacific Northwest Research Station lead 

a socioeconomic assessment of recovery 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2009, 

Q3

2009, 

Q4

2010, 

Q1

2010, 

Q2

2010, 

Q3

2010, 

Q4

2011, 

Q1

2011, 

Q2

Number of FTE jobs reported 

nationally by the Forest Service 

Calendar year, quarter
7

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

projects using a case-study approach. Accordingly, in collaboration with researchers from two other research stations 

and four universities, a purposive sample of case studies 

of Forest Service Recovery Act projects from around the 

country were undertaken (Charnley et al. 2011). The goals 

of this assessment were (1) to develop eight case studies 

highlighting the contributions of Forest Service economic 

recovery projects to the social and economic well-being of 

rural counties experiencing high economic distress, and (2) 

to explore how to better link agency mission-related work to 

rural community development opportunities. Case studies were chosen based on several criteria. The cases were 

located in states with high levels of Forest Service recovery 

spending, focused on rural areas having a relatively high 

Figure 7—Location of case studies discussed in this report in relation to county economic distress rankings (as of December 2008). 

Source: Economic distress rankings produced by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (See USDA FS 2009a for methodology).

Cheoah River Invasive 

 Plant Control

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest/

 White Mountain Apache Tribe

California North Coast Projects

Route of the Olympian Rails to Trails

Evergreen Forest Products Dry Kiln

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Alabama Cogongrass Control

Huron Fuels Treatment

Cheoah River Invasive 

 Plant Control

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest/

 White Mountain Apache Tribe

California North Coast Projects

Route of the Olympian Rails to Trails

Evergreen Forest Products Dry Kiln

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Alabama Cogongrass Control

Huron Fuels Treatment

WA

ID

MT

ME

MN

ND

OR

NH

VT

WI

NY

MI

SD

WY

MA

CA

CT

NV

RI

PA

IA NE

UT

NJ

OH IL IN

CO

WV DE

MD

VA

KS MO

KY AZ

NC

NM

TN OK

TX

AR

SC AL GA MS

LA

FL

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

^_

Guam

(no data)

Hawaii

o

Alaska

Puerto Rico,

U.S. Virgin Islands

^_ Approximate project locations

Economic distress indicator,

 December 2008

0 = low distress

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 = high 

 distress

county economic distress ranking, and were selected to 

provide broad geographic representation. The cases also 

included diverse project types and involved different 

branches of the Forest Service (National Forest System, 

State and Private Forestry, and Research and Development). 

Finally, these projects were ones that would produce significant on-the-ground outcomes by summer 2010. Figure 7 

shows the projects and their locations in relation to county 

economic distress ranking.

The research team gathered information about the 

recovery projects and their impacts between January and 

August 2010 by conducting interviews and obtaining data 

from secondary sources. The team interviewed 187 people, 

including Forest Service employees, funding recipients, 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

workers employed by the projects, and local leaders. Economic recovery data from Web sites such as Recovery.gov 

and USAspending.gov, and from Forest Service databases 

and records, were also collected and analyzed. In addition, 

the team assessed county-level social and economic data 

from several sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau 

and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The appendix describes 

research methods in more detail. Table 3 provides summary information about the eight case studies. These cases 

Table 3—Case-study summaries

Case study, funding amount, and case 

funding as a percentage of total Forest 

Service recovery funding to state Location Project description

Alabama Cogongrass Control Center Statewide Map and monitor cogongrass infestations, 

($6,281,000; 37.85 percent) carry out cogongrass control and eradication, 

 educate landowners, build long-term capacity 

 for invasive plant control.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and Apache, Navajo, Conduct postfire rehabilitation on federal and

White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona Greenlee Counties tribal lands, perform fuel reduction and 

($25,427,000; 47.84 percent) support local wood products industries, 

 improve recreation facilities and roads, 

 construct tribal greenhouse.

California’s North Coast Humboldt County Remove roadside brush and maintain forest 

($5,765,444; 2.97 percent) trails, conduct invasive plant assessment, 

 refurbish biomass powerplant, construct a 

 pole and post mill, construct an addition to a 

 research lab. 

Evergreen Forest Products Dry Kiln and Adams County Build dry kilns and wood restacker at 

Restacker, Idaho ($2,500,000; 2.51 percent) sawmill site to increase efficiency and 

 production and keep mill from closing.

Huron Fuels Treatment Project, Michigan Alcona, Crawford, Construct new fuel breaks, maintain existing 

($3,800,000; 9.64 percent) Losco, Oscoda fuel breaks, reduce fuels in the wildland-urban 

 Counties interface, improve health of federal forest land.

Route of the Olympian Rails to Trails, Mineral County Perform trestle and tunnel repairs and restoraMontana ($1,064,742; 1.5 percent) tion of abandoned railroad grades to open 

 a 30-mile recreational trail and encourage 

 recreation and tourism development.

Cheoah River Nonnative Invasive Plant Graham County Nonnative invasive plant control to protect 

Control, North Carolina ($332,911; federally listed threatened and endangered 

1.31 percent) species.

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Coos, Curry, Jackson, Conduct fuels reduction, promote community 

Oregon ($45,457,000; 25.67 percent) Josephine Counties wildfire protection, restore habitat, maintain

 roads and trails, clean up copper mine, invest 

 in communities. 

represent a total of $90.6 million in spending, or about 7.88 

percent of the $1.15 billion received by the Forest Service 

for Recovery Act work. 

The research team’s 10 key findings, which emerged 

from its socioeconomic assessment of the eight Forest 

Service Recovery Act case studies, are described in the 

next section. Examples from the case studies are used to 

illustrate them. Lessons learned in association with each 

of the key findings are also highlighted.
9

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Key Finding 1: Local Context Matters

Projects that were aligned with community needs 

and community capacity were more likely to 

create local community benefits. 

Research tells us that regardless of how well a policy is 

crafted or how thoroughly policymakers think through its 

potential impacts, the local social context (social, cultural, 

and economic resources and conditions) significantly affects 

implementation of the policy (McLaughlin 1987). In our 

case studies, we found that Recovery Act projects were perceived to be more effective in terms of creating local community benefits, and more sustainable over the long term, 

when they aligned what was needed with what was possible 

by building on existing community needs and collaborative 

efforts, undertaking projects well suited to the local social 

context, and making the most of local resources. Community capacity is the term used to describe the local resources 

that are mixed and matched within a community to solve 

problems or improve and maintain community well-being 

(Beckley et al. 2008, Chaskin 2001). Community capacity is 

developed over time and includes resources such as physical 

infrastructure, social networks, collaborative relationships, 

social norms, local history, and culture. When projects built 

on existing community capacity, Forest Service employees 

were able to effectively develop and implement projects that 

were good fits for local communities. An awareness of local 

conditions and community goals was commonly observed 

in Forest Service employees who had a community development orientation or had spent considerable time in the community. Recovery Act case studies conducted in Arizona 

and Idaho illustrate the importance of aligning projects with 

community needs and community capacity in facilitating 

project implementation and realizing benefits.

2

 The information in this section is from Burns et al. 2011. For 

additional discussion of this case study, see Key Findings 7 and 9. 

3

 The research for this report in Arizona’s White Mountain 

region was conducted prior to the Wallow Fire of June 2011.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and 

White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona2

Forest Service Recovery Act projects on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forest (ASNF) and the Fort Apache 

Indian Reservation drew on community capacity developed 

over the previous 15 years and addressed community needs 

and priorities by funding projects promoting rural economic 

development and forest restoration and rehabilitation in 

Arizona’s White Mountain region. The White Mountain 

Stewardship Contract (WMSC) was one of these projects, 

initiated in 2004 in response to the need for fuels reduction 

on federal forest land made apparent by the 468,000-acre 

Rodeo-Chediski Fire of 2002, which was the biggest fire 

in Arizona history until the Wallow Fire of 2011, which 

consumed 538,000 acres.3 The WMSC is the foundation 

of a local strategy to accomplish affordable fuels reduction 

and forest restoration while supporting development of 

a diversified wood products industry capable of utilizing small-diameter trees characteristic of the area. This 

industry includes wood pellet, biomass energy, pallet, 

lumber, furniture, molding, fertilizer, and animal bedding 

businesses. Drawing on community capacity that developed 

by implementing the WMSC, and knowledge of community 

priorities and local economic conditions, Forest Service 

employees obtained Recovery Act funding for a set of 

projects that complemented work being done under the 

WMSC to reduce fuels and restore ecosystems, support 

small-diameter wood products industries, and improve 

community economic status. Many of these projects were 

implemented as task orders under the existing WMSC and 

through its collaborative framework. 

The White Mountain Apache Tribe also benefited from 

recovery dollars targeted to forest restoration and rehabilitation associated with the Rodeo-Chediski Fire. The White 

Mountain Apache Tribe’s Fort Apache Reservation (fig. 8) 

bore the brunt of the Rodeo-Chediski Fire. 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Timber and recreation and tourism were the economic 

mainstays of the tribe, and this fire burned a significant 

portion of the timber on the reservation. In addition, two 

tribal mills have closed. An economic recovery grant to the 

tribe has funded a number of postfire forest rehabilitation 

projects on reservation lands, including hazard tree 

removal, reseeding, erosion control, fence building, and 

cultural resource protection. The tribe completed burnedarea emergency rehabilitation efforts in 2005, and thus was 

well-positioned to plan for and undertake these recovery 

projects (fig. 9). For the past few years, the tribe has also 

worked with the ASNF to develop an agreement under the 

Tribal Forest Protection Act, which allows tribes to propose 

and carry out fuels mitigation work on neighboring national 

forest land. The Fort Apache Reservation borders the ASNF. 

The Recovery Act funded this agreement, creating jobs for 

tribe members to conduct hand thinning to reduce fuels 

and prepare sites for ecosystem restoration on the ASNF. 

These Recovery Act projects are providing job training 

Figure 8—Fort Apache Indian Reservation, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona.

and employment benefits to tribe members during the 

economic recession, when unemployment on the reservation 

has hovered around 50 percent. At the same time they are 

contributing to forest restoration and rehabilitation on 

both national forest and tribal lands greatly affected by the 

Rodeo-Chediski Fire.

Recreation and tourism are major sectors in Arizona’s 

state and local economies, and were another area of investment on the ASNF using economic recovery funds. Many 

of the ASNF campgrounds are important socially and 

economically in local communities because merchants 

rely on associated recreation and tourism income for their 

livelihoods. Maintaining access to the forest’s recreation 

facilities by keeping roads that connect local communities 

and campgrounds in good condition is also a local priority, because these serve as important economic pathways 

through the region. The ASNF staff had completed planning and design for several recreation facilities and road 

improvements on the forest (fig. 10), projects necessary for 

Susan Charnley
11

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Figure 9—Members of the White Mountain Apache Tribe benefited from forest restoration jobs on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest.

upgrading infrastructure dating from the 1960s and 1970s, 

but lacked funding to proceed. When Recovery Act funds 

were made available for these recreation projects, the ASNF 

staff moved quickly to allocate them. Indefinite delivery/

indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts are used on many 

national forests to support ongoing work with contractors 

to achieve management objectives on federal land. Because 

contractor capacity to complete the work was available 

locally, and IDIQs were already in place, the forest was able 

to undertake the work necessary to maintain this critical 

infrastructure quickly. As a result, local contractors—two 

of whom were on the verge of bankruptcy—obtained jobs, 

and local tourism-dependent communities began to obtain 

long-term economic benefits from infrastructure improvements that should increase visitation to the region and 

enhance the visitor experience.

Figure 10—With American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

funds, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest was able to upgrade 

recreational facilities, such as the bathroom facilities at Big Lake, 

helping to provide positive recreation experiences to visitors.

A. McCabe

James Dietrich
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Evergreen Forest Products Dry Kiln 

and Restacker, Idaho4

In southwestern Idaho, a set of regional players including 

county commissioners, nongovernmental organizations, 

local business owners, contractors, investors, and Forest 

Service State and Private Forestry staff were able to use 

Recovery Act funds to preserve and improve infrastructure 

critical to regional economic development and Forest 

Service efforts to restore local ecosystems. They did so 

in a manner that built on the region’s historic roots in the 

forest products industry, the keystone industry in the area 

until the early 1990s. 

When the forest products industry began leaving southwestern Idaho in the late 20th century, stakeholders organized to encourage reestablishment of the industry. Groups 

including the Idaho Economic Development Association, 

Intermountain Roundwood Association, and Sustainable 

Northwest sought new industry that would utilize secondgrowth forests and encourage active management of all 

forest lands. This focus on rural economic development 

was aligned with a local culture that recognized natural 

resources (forests and rangelands) as the traditional source 

of livelihood. In 2007, commissioners in Adams, Boise, 

Gem, and Valley Counties brought together various interests to form the Woody Biomass Utilization Partnership. 

This group was tasked with identifying biomass sources 

and developing uses for this material that could help keep 

citizens fully employed in well-paying jobs, and retain 

youth in rural communities (Idaho Smallwood Partners 

2010). One of the group’s priorities was retaining Evergreen 

Forest Products, the one remaining sawmill in Adams 

County, Idaho. 

Evergreen Forest Products is an essential component of 

the region’s forest products economy, linking forest owners, 

managers, and industry operators in a mutually dependent 

economic web (fig. 11). Public and private forest owners 

sold their raw material to Evergreen, where it was turned 

into rough-cut green lumber. Mill waste was used in an 

onsite cogeneration plant to produce electricity that was sold 

to Idaho Power. Income from the sale of electricity helped 

support the mill during poor lumber markets. The mill’s 

rough-cut green lumber was hauled more than 100 miles 

north to Clearwater Forest Industries, where it was planed, 

dried, and prepared for shipping to local lumber retailers. 

Truckers in western Idaho circulated between logging sites, 

Evergreen Forest Products, Clearwater Forest Industries, 

paper mills, and retailers, hauling raw material and finished 

products throughout the region. However, it was obvious to 

the owners of Evergreen Forest Products that they needed 

to become more economically efficient to remain competitive and survive, and their answer was to build three dry 

kilns and a restacker at the mill. These improvements 

would make it possible to dry lumber on site and double the 

amount of wood hauled per truckload to the planing mill 

(fig. 12). Because of the recession, the owners were unable 

to secure industrial bonds for the project, and sought other 

sources of funding to avoid closing the mill. The Recovery 

Act’s passage was timely in that funds could be applied to 

maintain and develop this critical piece of infrastructure.

The Evergreen Forest Products project is an example 

of how Recovery Act dollars allocated to State and Private 

Forestry were directed to strengthen and diversify the forest 

products industry, including woody biomass utilization. 

Staff drew upon regional networks of Idaho economic 

development players, including the Woody Biomass 

Utilization Partnership, to prepare proposals that could 

compete for Recovery Act funding. They were successful in 

obtaining funding for four projects, including the dry kiln 

and restacker project at Evergreen Forest Products. Thus, 

the project built on a need identified by the community 

and has helped keep a mill running in a county where the 

forest products industry still plays an important social 

and economic role. The success of this project is critical 

to achieving several Recovery Act goals in western Idaho, 

including preserving jobs, promoting economic recovery, 

and increasing economic efficiency. 4

 The information in this section is from Sturtevant et al. 2011a. 

For additional discussion of this case study, see Key Finding 3.
13

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Figure 11—The Evergreen Forest Products dry kiln project kept the sawmill running and, in doing so, helped maintain a 

network of community social and economic relations.

Planer Packager

Chips Saw logs

Clearwater Forest Industries

Public and private

forest land

Electricity

cogeneration

Dry kiln

Sawmill

Idaho

Power

Proposed

new

cogen

plant

Lumber distributors

Woody Biomass

Utilization

Partnership

Idaho

Smallwood

Payette Forest

Coalition

Evergreen 

Forest 

Products

Figure 12—Thanks to American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

funding, Evergreen Forest Products was able to invest in dry kilns 

and a restacker, which enables them to double the amount of wood 

hauled per truckload to the planing mill.

The Evergreen Recovery Act project also supports 

forest management goals on the Payette and Boise 

National Forests by providing a market for raw material 

being removed using stewardship contracts awarded for 

fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration. The increased 

availability of raw material from federal lands will 

expand the wood supply for Evergreen Forest Products. 

Mill owners anticipated lower log prices, with plans to 

use the potential savings to further expand the mill (e.g., 

build a planer) and hire more workers (add another shift). 

Finally, the Forest Service’s contribution to keeping 

Evergreen Forest Products operating demonstrates the 

agency’s commitment to forest management and local 

communities, which could help build trust.

Jessi Kershner

Victoria Sturtevant
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Lesson Learned 

Projects that are appropriate to local social, 

cultural, and economic conditions, that address 

community and agency needs and priorities, and 

that draw on local community capacity in their 

implementation are more likely to create local 

community benefits and resilient local economies 

in the future.

The Arizona and Idaho case studies provide good examples 

of economic recovery projects that were designed to be 

appropriate to local social, cultural, and economic conditions. They also addressed community and agency needs 

and priorities, and drew on local community capacity in 

their implementation. Projects like these are likely to lead 

to a more resilient local economy in the future. Taking a 

holistic, integrated approach to community development 

and national forest and tribal natural resource management 

increases the chances that project investments will create 

local benefits. 

Key Finding 2: Short-Term and 

Seasonal Jobs Make a Difference

Many Recovery Act jobs were short term or 

seasonal in nature, but were more than just 

a “bridge” or a “life raft” to help people get 

through hard times; the jobs had greater 

social and economic benefits. 

Many Recovery Act jobs have been short-term or seasonal 

jobs, lasting only a few weeks or months until a one-time 

project is complete. Nevertheless, they had important benefits that helped people affected by the recession fill employment gaps and get through hard times, prepared people for 

future employment opportunities, and improved well-being 

and environmental awareness. There was no single manner 

in which Recovery Act projects helped people. Rather, the 

many different kinds of Recovery Act projects, different 

socioeconomic contexts in which they were carried out, 

and range of job types led to a great diversity of benefits 

for project employees. Construction jobs, often short term, 

helped jobless individuals stay afloat economically through 

the recession and kept many businesses operating. Natural 

resource work provided training and experience in diverse 

areas such as wildland firefighting, chainsaw operation, and 

invasive plant control. This work prepared people for other 

job opportunities and expanded the pool of workers available for future Forest Service and other work in these fields. 

Most Recovery Act funds were directed to private sector 

jobs, providing new opportunities to acquire job skills and 

employment that fit into existing work histories, completing 

the jobs picture for many individuals who would otherwise 

have experienced employment gaps. People also gained new 

knowledge and skills, appreciation of nature and natural 

resource management issues, and mental and physical 

health benefits from outdoor work, and they established 

new relationships. Examples of these benefits follow.

Huron Fuels Treatment Project, Michigan5

When Recovery Act-funded projects were sought in the 

Northern Region of the Forest Service, the Mio and Huron 

Shores Districts of the Huron National Forest (HNF) 

decided that the best approach for helping their neighbors 

persevere during the downturn would be to provide temporary jobs working in the woods to reduce wildfire risk 

and improve or restore ecosystem health. The Huron Fuels 

Treatment Project, which funded $3.8 million of hazardous 

fuels reduction and forest restoration activities on the HNF, 

hired 88 local residents as temporary employees over two 

field seasons, providing them with extensive training in 

forest worker skills, including chain saw operation, heavy 

equipment operation, and firefighting, all the while stressing 

safety. After classroom training, they served as apprentices 

in the woods before transitioning to their jobs performing 

critical high-priority work on the HNF and on other forests 

in the region. Additional training resulted in Recovery Act 

employees being certified for wildland-fire suppression. 

Employees indicated that these jobs had pay and benefits 

that exceeded those typical of local private sector jobs, and 

that the jobs kept many of them afloat economically while 

providing satisfying outdoor work that improved physical 

5 The information in this section is based on Jakes 2011. For 

additional discussion of this case study, see Key Findings 7 and 9.
15

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

fitness and provided mental health benefits (fig. 13). But 

the Forest Service Recovery Act jobs did more than just 

support people financially. The training and experience 

provided gave local residents new skills, making them 

more competitive for future forestry and natural resourcerelated job opportunities, potentially making a difference in 

people’s lives for years to come. In particular, their wildfire 

training certified many of the local employees to work on 

wildland firefighting crews. These skills were used in May 

residents qualify for unemployment once their seasonal job 

ended. The jobs also sparked the interest of some student 

employees in the natural resource field, leading to changed 

majors and new career plans. 

Invasive Species Control in Alabama 

and North Carolina6

The Recovery Act led to larger-than-normal investments 

in the control of nonnative invasive species in many 

states, including Alabama and North Carolina. In North 

Carolina, the Cheoah River Nonnative Invasive Plant 

Control project provided over $300,000 for invasive 

species control to protect federally listed threatened and 

endangered plant, fish, and aquatic invertebrate species. 

The project trained young, unemployed members of the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in identification and 

control of troublesome nonnative plant species. This work 

stimulated individuals’ interest in natural resource fields 

and outdoor work, while also developing a trained cadre of 

tribe members who will be ready to work on invasive plant 

control through other contracts with the Forest Service 

and the National Park Service, as well as on projects on 

Cherokee tribal lands. Cherokee crews were supervised by 

botanists hired by the Western North Carolina Alliance, 

providing needed employment for recent college graduates 

while enhancing their skills in areas as diverse as chain saw 

operation and supervision of ethnically diverse work crews. 

One of these individuals has already found employment 

with the North Carolina State Forestry Division, and a 

second found off-season work with another agency.

The Alabama Cogongrass Control Center, a $6.3- 

million project funded by the Forest Service’s State and 

Private Forestry branch but implemented largely through 

private forestry contractors, shows how seasonal and 

temporary work can help private businesses survive and 

prosper while at the same time strengthening a new niche 

industry in invasive plant control in the state. Cogongrass 

(Imperata cylindrica L. [Beauv.]) is one of the most problematic invasive plants in the United States. When left 

Figure 13—Recipients of American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act jobs created on the Huron National Forest affirmed that the 

satisfying outdoor work improved their physical fitness and their 

mental health.

2010 when recovery employees helped battle the 8,500-acre 

Meridian Boundary Fire. The recovery employees who 

volunteer with local fire departments have found that their 

wildland firefighting skills are benefiting these departments. 

Finally, recovery employees learned how to access federal 

job databases and apply for these jobs. 

By summer 2010, 15 of the 88 people hired directly by 

the HNF had already moved on to other private or public 

sector jobs—8 of them finding permanent seasonal jobs, 

including positions on hot shot crews, with the Forest 

Service in Michigan, South Dakota, and New Mexico. In 

addition to providing income, this seasonal work helped 

local residents avoid chronic unemployment, which can 

make it harder to find a new job. It helped some local 6

 This section is based on Morse 2011 and Schelhas 2011. For 

additional discussion of the Alabama case study, see Key Finding 

7, and for the North Carolina case study, see Key Findings 4 and 6.

Huron National Forest
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

unchecked, it forms dense, fire-prone stands that create high 

fire risk, eliminate native plants, diminish wildlife habitat, 

threaten forest plantations, and are an economic liability to 

hunting and forestry businesses. Forestry consultants and 

chemical applicators were contracted to undertake seasonal 

work mapping and spraying cogongrass infestations on 

private lands in northern Alabama (fig. 14). This contract 

work enabled these consultants and applicators to continue 

working with their existing clients while providing new 

work to make up for the decline in timber-related business 

they experienced during the recession. Contractors fit the 

new work into their businesses in unique ways, sometimes 

by devoting part of the week to cogongrass control, and 

other times by job-sharing with someone whose existing 

work schedule was countercyclical to their own. Forestry 

consultants and applicators are gaining experience in 

large-scale invasive plant control, landowners are becoming 

aware of the threats invasive plants pose to their forestry 

and wildlife operations, and landowners and consultants are 

Figure 14—Forestry consultants and chemical applicators were 

contracted to undertake seasonal work mapping and spraying 

cogongrass infestations on private lands in northern Alabama. 

This work is creating long-term capacity for invasive species 

control, while also stimulating an economically viable, new 

niche industry in invasive plant control.

meeting each other—building trust and relationships that 

lay the groundwork for future job opportunities. This project is expected to stimulate the growth of a niche business 

in invasive plant control in Alabama in the future.

California’s North Coast—Six Rivers 

National Forest Trail Maintenance7

In California, trail maintenance work on the Six Rivers 

National Forest was accomplished through agreements with 

three project recipients, including two youth corps groups 

(the California Conservation Corps and the Northwest 

Youth Corps). The Recovery Act directed the Forest Service 

to use groups serving young adults where practical. Ten- to 

twelve-person crews from these organizations work for 5 

to 8 days at a time doing trail maintenance work under the 

supervision of a Forest Service employee, often camping 

together in the forest during this period. Working with these 

groups provided many benefits, both in keeping youth job 

corps programs operating at a time when state budgets that 

help support them were hurting, and by helping the youth 

employed by these programs. Local youth found productive 

and satisfying work outdoors and near their community, 

where jobs for young people can be scarce. Urban youth 

had an opportunity to experience the outdoors and gained 

an appreciation for nature. Working on trail projects gave 

youth a sense of accomplishment, helping to raise their selfesteem. Young participants also developed workforce skills 

such as getting along with people of diverse backgrounds, 

learning to work hard, and being timely and consistent 

in their work habits. Several eventually got seasonal jobs 

with the Forest Service in recreation or fire that can lead 

to permanent employment. And, youth job corps programs 

often have other resources for participants that can help 

them gain future employment, such as support completing 

their General Education Degrees if they have not finished 

high school, shop work, and work on farms and gardens.

7 This section is based on Charnley 2011. For additional discussion 

of this project, see Key Finding 8.

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
17

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Lesson Learned 

Investments in short-term projects build worker 

skills and capacity to gain long-term employment 

and compete for future agency and private 

sector contracts. They also have many social and 

economic benefits (e.g., filling in seasonal gaps in 

employment, promoting awareness of nature and 

natural resource management, fostering pride 

and self-esteem, increasing physical fitness, and 

building relationships); and they make it easier 

for the Forest Service to accomplish work by 

helping maintain a local workforce. 

The Forest Service can learn lessons from the projects discussed here that will help the agency accomplish its future 

work while providing benefits for local people and communities. Seasonal jobs are common in many rural communities and around many national forests; natural resource 

agencies frequently hire seasonal employees. Moreover, 

private-sector natural resource jobs are often temporary or 

contracted. Many rural residents find ways to piece together 

seasonal and temporary jobs to make a living. For some job 

types, such as botanists, forestry consultants, and chemical 

applicators, Forest Service contract work supplements other 

work, with contract work providing key business opportunities that fit in with other work to enable people to make a 

living or sustain a business. For other job types, such as 

forestry support workers, seasonal contract work for the 

Forest Service and other federal agencies may be the main 

source of employment. Short-term projects and employment 

not only help to sustain rural livelihoods; when sufficient 

opportunities are present, a pool of trained and experienced 

employees can be maintained locally that the Forest Service 

can use to get work done and meet its goals.

Key Finding 3: More Jobs Are Created 

and Retained Than Are Counted

The jobs impacts of Forest Service Recovery Act 

projects are greater than the numbers reported. 

The success of the Recovery Act is often measured by 

counting the number of jobs that economic recovery 

funding directly paid to create or retain. This number 

is calculated by using a formula to estimate full-time 

equivalent positions.8 Funding recipients must report the 

number of economic recovery jobs that they created or 

retained by using this formula on a quarterly basis; the 

reports are available on the economic recovery Web site 

http://www.recovery.gov. Our assessment found that, in 

addition to these direct project jobs, other associated jobs 

are created as a result of Recovery Act projects. These 

jobs are unaccounted for and not reported. Methods for 

estimating these additional job impacts in quantitative 

(number of jobs) or financial (income generated) terms 

exist but are unreliable and were outside the scope of this 

study. Consequently, it is difficult to measure the Forest 

Service’s real success in meeting its goals of investing in 

projects that create jobs that are sustainable over the long 

term, and that contribute to rural and urban economies, 

thereby telling the full jobs story associated with Forest 

Service Recovery Act projects.

What kind of jobs are these unreported jobs? They 

include long-term sustainable jobs associated with the 

operational phase of a project investment, jobs in businesses that provide goods and services purchased for the 

initial project investment and during project operation, 

8 The Recovery Act requires funding recipients to report number 

of jobs in the form of fractional full-time equivalent (FTE) 

jobs. Only jobs that are funded directly by Recovery Act dollars 

are considered, and there is no differentiation made between 

existing jobs or newly created jobs. At the end of each quarter, the 

recipient takes the total number of hours worked and funded by 

the Recovery Act, and divides it by the number of quarterly hours 

that constitute a full-time schedule to calculate the number of 

FTE jobs. The number of quarterly hours constituting a full-time 

schedule may differ depending on job standards, but is typically 

520. (This assumes that a typical full-time position is 40 hours 

per week. A quarter is 13 weeks; 40 × 13 = 520.) Therefore, if a 

recipient records that in one quarter, three employees worked a 

total of 1,300 hours that were paid for by the Recovery Act, they 

will divide those 1,300 hours by 520 and report 2.5 FTE jobs. 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

jobs in businesses that provide goods and services to 

people employed by the project during its investment and 

operational phases, and people employed by supporting 

businesses. These jobs are often called the direct, indirect, 

and induced jobs associated with project implementation 

and operation.

Funding recipients interviewed for this study sometimes expressed frustration with the Recovery Act job 

reporting methods because they do not take into account 

these greater job impacts, which interviewees considered 

significant. Project investments in facilities and infrastructure are particularly important in generating these kinds of 

jobs. Examples come from California, Idaho, and Montana.

California’s North Coast—

Blue Lake Biomass Power Plant9

In September 2009, a company called Renewable Energy 

Providers (REP) received a $2 million economic recovery 

grant ($2,006,550) from the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), State and Private Forestry for a 

wood-to-energy project in Humboldt County in northern 

California. In 2008, REP had bought and begun refurbishing an 11.5-megawatt biomass powerplant in the community 

of Blue Lake, but their financing for the project was lost 

when the main investor suffered a severe reduction in his 

credit line owing to the national credit crisis that accompanied the economic recession. The recovery grant made it 

possible for REP to leverage $8 million in additional funding from a new lender, and the Blue Lake Biomass Power 

Plant came online in May 2010 with a 15-year contract to 

sell power to the San Diego Gas and Electric Company (fig. 

15). From October to December 2009 (the height of activity 

to complete the refurbishing) about 54 FTEs were reported 

by REP in their recipient reports. These were mainly shortterm jobs paid for by the recovery grant to get the biomass 

plant up and running. Additional jobs created or retained as 

a result of this project will not be reported, but are numerous. Now that it is operating, 17 long-term, sustainable, 

local, family-wage jobs have been created to run the plant. 

These employees include eight workers who were laid off 

by a local pulp mill when it closed in 2008. The biomass 

plant will also support long-term jobs for biomass suppliers, 

including chipper operators, loader operators, and truck 

drivers who transport biomass to the mill. Businesses in 

Blue Lake benefit indirectly from these jobs. Furthermore, 

REP will use the profits it earns from the Blue Lake plant 

to invest in and develop biomass powerplants elsewhere 

in northern California, which will in turn create more 

jobs. The recovery grant to REP is helping to support the 

development of a forest restoration economy in Humboldt 

County.

Evergreen Forest Products 

Dry Kiln and Restacker, Idaho10

A $2.5-million grant to Evergreen Forest Products made it 

possible to construct three dry kilns and a restacker at its 

mill in Tamarack, Idaho—the only remaining sawmill in 

Adams County, Idaho—thereby increasing its economic 

efficiency (fig. 16). Construction took place between October 2009 and March 2010. Between October and December 

2009, 80 FTEs were reported by the Tamarack mill in its 

recipient reports; from January through March 2010, 100.86 

FTEs were reported. But the bigger jobs story, according 

to the mill owner, is that this project kept the mill from 

shutting down during the recession. Had the mill shut down, 

Figure 15—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act spending 

made it possible for Renewable Energy Providers to leverage 

additional funding to open the Blue Lake Biomass Power Plant.

9 The information in this section is based on Charnley 2011. 10 The information in this section is from Sturtevant et al. 2011a. 

For additional discussion of this case study, see Key Finding 1.

Susan Charnley
19

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

60 core, local, long-term, family-wage mill jobs would 

have been lost. Not only did the recovery project help 

retain these jobs; it made it possible to increase production 

at the mill, which initially added a second shift, expanding 

employment from 60 to 120 workers. Unfortunately, the 

lumber market slump in spring 2010 caused the second 

shift of workers to be laid off. Once the construction 

industry picks up again (nationally or globally), it should 

be possible to rehire this second shift of workers. The 

Tamarack mill is also part of a larger economic system that 

includes another mill owned by Evergreen Forest Products, 

contractors who supply logs and biomass, paper mills that 

buy their chips, a new biomass powerplant soon to be built 

in the community that will consume their extra biomass, 

and businesses in local communities where mill workers 

buy goods and services. This network is maintained by 

keeping the Tamarack mill going.

Route of the Olympian, Montana11

A third example comes from Montana’s Route of the 

Olympian Rails to Trails project, which is creating a 

multi-use trail following the Milwaukee Road rail bed 

east of the Idaho-Montana border. (The Olympian was the 

name of the passenger train that traversed the Milwaukee 

Road.) Like many places in the West whose lumber and 

mining economic foundation has deteriorated, Mineral 

County in western Montana has been struggling to 

define a new economic and cultural identity. While some 

believe that traditional extractive industries can again be 

Figure 16—A $2.5-million grant to Evergreen Forest Products 

made it possible to construct three dry kilns and a restacker at 

its mill in Tamarack, Idaho.

11 The information in this section is from Sturtevant et al. 2011b. For 

additional discussion of this case study, see Key Findings 4 and 6.

Figure 17—Recreation and tourism are expected to make growing contributions to the local economy as a result of American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding that supported a 30-mile 

bicycle trail in Mineral County. 

a major employer of choice in the county, data suggest that 

recreation and tourism are providing a growing contribution 

to the local economy (fig. 17). 

The $1,064,742 Route of the Olympian economic recovery project is paying for an engineering assessment, project 

design, repairs to the Dominion trestle and tunnel, and 

restoration of 8 miles of abandoned railroad grades to make 

possible a new 30-mile recreation trail in Mineral County. 

The trestle and tunnel repairs were a critical, unfunded 

piece of the rails-to-trails project supported by the Recovery 

Act. Once repairs are complete, the rest of the trail will be 

upgraded. It is anticipated to open to the public in 2012. 

Mineral County was formerly timber-dependent but is trying to diversify economically. The Forest Service manages 

84 percent of the land in the county, making recreation and 

tourism a major draw there. The Route of the Olympian will 

connect to the 17-mile Trail of the Hiawatha, a bike trail that 

is very popular for recreation, located just across the state 

line in Idaho. By making possible the development of this 

multi-use trail, this recovery project is helping transform the 

rural economy of Mineral County, and represents an investment in long-term job creation in tourism-related industries.

It is too soon to be certain about the longer term 

economic impacts of the trail. As of September 2010, 

one FTE had been reported in association with Recovery 

Jessi Kershner

Victoria Sturtevant
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Act funding for the project. Research undertaken on the 

economic impacts of trails in neighboring Idaho offer some 

insights into the potential future impacts of the Route of 

the Olympian in Montana. For example, Idaho’s Trail of the 

Hiawatha had 32,000 visitors in 2009, and 58 percent of 

the visitors surveyed said they would continue riding into 

Montana if it were possible (McCollum and Miller 2010). 

Researchers estimated that each visitor averaged nearly two 

economic transactions per visit, with each transaction worth 

an average of $78. The Trail of the Coeur d’Alenes bike path 

is reported to be responsible for 80 percent of the business 

done by merchants in local communities along this Idaho 

trail (Schneider 2010). These findings suggest that the communities located along the Route of the Olympian will reap 

similar long-term economic benefits from the recreation and 

tourism opportunities the trail brings in the future.

Lesson Learned 

It is difficult to estimate the full and long-term 

jobs impacts of Forest Service project investments, especially once the project money is spent; 

however, these can be substantial, especially for 

investments in hard infrastructure projects (e.g., 

recreation infrastructure, bioenergy facilities, 

and wood processing infrastructure). 

A priority for the Forest Service in selecting recovery projects to fund was their potential to create jobs that would be 

sustainable over the long term and that might help transform 

urban and rural economies. The cases described in this 

section make evident the fact that investments in hard infrastructure development in particular can lead to long-term 

sustainable job creation, especially when these investments 

interface with existing or developing local economic sectors 

and are not merely stand-alone projects. Unfortunately, 

these long-term job impacts are not captured in Recovery 

Act recipient reports, nor are indirect and induced jobs. 

Forest Service investments in local job creation have larger 

economic benefits than is apparent from immediate funding 

expenditures associated with project implementation. 

Key Finding 4: Project Benefits Are 

Felt in Target Counties and Beyond

Some funding recipients were based in the 

counties where their projects were located, 

others were not; in either case, target counties 

benefitted. 

The Forest Service used county economic distress rankings to target Recovery Act funds to the counties most 

affected by the recession. The higher the economic distress 

ranking of the county in which a project was located, the 

more likely the project was to be chosen for Recovery 

Act funding, all else being equal. Although the recipients 

obtaining the contracts, agreements, or grants to work on 

recovery projects were often based in the same counties 

in which their projects were located, some project recipients came from other counties or states. There were two 

primary reasons for this. In some cases, there was no local 

capacity for carrying out the project because there were 

no local businesses or nonprofit organizations with the 

specialized skills and resources that were required. Over 

time, depressed forest industry conditions and difficulty in 

accessing changing federal bid mechanisms have eliminated many local businesses near large tracts of federal 

land. This situation has left many communities unable to 

take economic advantage of their nearby natural resource 

base. In other cases, a nonlocal company had the lowest 

bid or scored highest across a series of decision criteria. 

Because of the weak economy, there were more companies 

bidding on projects than usual, and many companies were 

bidding on projects located farther from their home base. 

Nevertheless, economically distressed counties 

often benefitted from recovery projects whether or not 

the recipients were local. In a number of cases, nonlocal 

recipients came from other economically distressed counties. And, nonlocal project recipients often created local 

benefits in the counties where their projects were located 

by hiring workers, purchasing project materials, staying in 

hotels, and eating in restaurants. Furthermore, projects that 

created or improved local infrastructure might contribute 

to long-term job creation and other local economic benefits 
21

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

in the future. Cases from California, Montana, and North 

Carolina illustrate some of the complexities involved in 

trying to target economically distressed counties with 

Recovery Act projects. They also point to the fact that counties are embedded in larger regional economies, and that 

the economic benefits from Recovery Act projects spread 

beyond the target counties to these larger regions.

California’s North Coast—Redwood 

Sciences Lab12

Recovery Act funding in the amount of roughly $1 million was used to add a second floor to the Redwood Sciences Laboratory, one of the Forest Service research labs 

affiliated with the Pacific Southwest Research Station in 

Arcata, California (fig. 18). The project was a follow-on to 

a seismic retrofit and remodel that was paid for with other 

on government projects, even those far from home. Three 

of the employees working on the project came from the 

home office in Oregon, and up to four local workers at any 

one time were employed by the project through a local 

temporary employment agency. The recipient company is 

also purchasing many supplies locally, and local subcontractors performed electrical, plumbing, and welding work. 

Thus, local hiring, subcontracting, and purchasing helped 

the Redwood Sciences Lab recovery project contribute to 

Humboldt County’s local economy, despite the fact that the 

project recipient was based in Oregon.

Route of the Olympian, Montana14

The Route of the Olympian project involves trestle and 

tunnel repairs that required an engineering assessment and 

design plan, highly technical construction expertise, and 

specialized heavy equipment (fig. 19). There was no local 

capacity in Mineral County to do this work, so contracts 

were awarded to two nonlocal Montana recipients. One 

small engineering firm with offices in Missoula and Helena, 

Montana, is responsible for the assessment, design, and 

construction oversight. A large construction company with 

offices in Helena, Great Falls, and Bozeman, Montana, is 

Figure 18—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds 

made it possible to construct a second-floor addition to the Forest 

Service Redwood Sciences Laboratory in Arcata, California.

12 The information in this section is based on Charnley 2011. 

13 Economic distress rankings were on a scale of 1 to 10, with 

10 being the highest.

14 The information in this section is based on Sturtevant et al. 

2011b. For additional discussion of this case study, see Key 

Findings 3 and 6.

Figure 19—The Route of the Olympian project involves trestle and 

tunnel repairs that required an engineering assessment and design 

plan, highly technical construction expertise, and specialized 

heavy equipment.

funds. Despite the project location in Humboldt County, the 

contract for the project was awarded, through competitive 

procedures, to a construction company based 160 miles 

away in Grants Pass, Oregon, the county seat of Josephine 

County, Oregon, which has an economic distress ranking 

of 9 (compared to Humboldt County’s ranking of 7).13 The 

construction industry was particularly hard hit in southwest 

Oregon, causing more companies from this region to bid 

Corrine L. Kegel

Susan Charnley
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

carrying out repairs and improvements. The two firms were 

chosen because they scored highest on four contractor selection criteria that included having an excellent safety record. 

The construction company will subcontract with local 

businesses for supplying gravel, sealing the bridge deck, and 

possibly other tasks. Local workers will also be hired onto 

their six- to eight-person crew. As detailed in Key Finding 

3, most of the local economic benefits from the trail project 

are expected to accrue in the future with the arrival of new 

recreationists once the trail is complete. 

Cheoah River Nonnative Invasive 

Plant Control, North Carolina15

The Forest Service used two agreements with key regional 

organizations to carry out the Cheoah River Nonnative 

Invasive Plant Control Project, located in western North Carolina on the Nantahala National Forest in Graham County 

(economic distress ranking = 8). One agreement was with 

the Western North Carolina Alliance, a nonprofit grassroots 

organization working in the mountain counties of western 

North Carolina, that provided botanical and invasive plant 

control expertise and crew supervision (fig. 20). The alliance 

is based in Asheville, N.C., several counties and about 

100 miles to the east of the project location, though still in 

the western North Carolina mountain region. The second 

agreement was with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, 

which provided work crews. The Cherokee reservation in 

Swain County (economic distress ranking = 6) lies mainly 

to the northeast of the Graham County project location. 

Work crews were organized by Vocational Opportunities for 

Cherokee, Inc., a temporary employment service that works 

with Cherokee people who have disabilities or barriers 

to employment. One crew came from the community of 

Snowbird, in Graham County, and one crew came from the 

town of Cherokee, about an hour away from the project site 

in Swain County. Although not all of the jobs created by 

this recovery project went to people living in the county 

where the project was located, the project did employ people 

who desperately needed jobs in an ailing economy, and 

created capacity among the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians to engage in invasive plant control work that will 

likely provide long-term economic benefits to them.

Lesson Learned 

Targeting projects and associated benefits to the 

most economically distressed communities is a 

good strategy but can be difficult; measures to 

support and redevelop local business capacity 

to undertake work that fulfills long-term Forest 

Service needs will help communities take 

advantage of project opportunities, increase 

local benefits, and help economically distressed 

communities near public lands. 

Targeting projects and associated work opportunities to 

economically distressed communities is an important 

rural community development strategy, but can be complicated by various factors. Needed technical skills may 

not be available locally, and in some cases, local capacity 

to perform work and bid for government contracts has 

eroded over time. Yet local benefits were often realized 

even when nonlocal contractors were selected, through 

employment, subcontracting, and local purchases. In the 

Figure 20—The Western North Carolina Alliance, a nonprofit 

grassroots organization working in the mountain counties of 

western North Carolina, provided botanical and invasive plant 

control expertise and crew supervision for a Recovery Act 

invasive plant control project.

15 The information in this section is based on Morse 2011. For 

additional discussion of this case study, see Key Findings 2 and 6.

Wayde Morse
23

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

modern economy, certain types of work are often done by 

highly specialized companies that travel long distances to 

work on projects. This is unlikely to change, but projects 

can still provide local benefits. For other types of work, 

such as general construction and restoration work that can 

be performed by local companies and fulfill long-term 

Forest Service needs, measures to support and redevelop 

local business capacity where needed could increase local 

benefits and help economically distressed communities near 

public lands. 

Key Finding 5: Individual Employees 

Make a Difference

Forest Service employees developed a number 

of strategies for increasing the socioeconomic 

benefits of Recovery Act projects to local communities. 

When the Recovery Act passed, Forest Service units were 

asked to submit potential projects for funding, and regional 

offices and research stations sent their priority projects to 

the agency’s national headquarters. Although decisions 

about what projects to fund were made by the agency’s 

Washington office, individual Forest Service employees 

at the ground level played an important role in influencing how project benefits were distributed, and in turn, the 

nature and extent of socioeconomic benefits to local communities. A number of strategies emerged for targeting and 

enhancing the socioeconomic benefits of economic recovery 

projects in counties experiencing high economic distress. 

These included:

• Conducting outreach to raise awareness among 

potential recipients of funding opportunities.

• Helping potential recipients or project employees 

overcome administrative barriers to obtaining work.

• Using agreements to target specific recipients in 

need of work.

• Implementing projects in a manner that was laborintensive rather than equipment-intensive, thereby 

creating more jobs.

• Breaking projects down into different sizes and 

types and using different funding mechanisms to 

take advantage of a range of skills and capacities 

in local communities.

The California and Oregon case studies provide 

examples of these strategies.

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Hazardous Fuel Reduction, Oregon16

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF) in 

southwestern Oregon received $45.5 million in economic 

recovery funds, over $30 million of which were for hazardous fuel reduction. Employees on the RRSNF made 

a concerted effort to distribute the fuel reduction money 

in a manner that would provide benefits to many of the 

region’s economically distressed communities. They did 

this by planning and laying out fuel reduction projects on 

ranger districts so that local contractors of different sizes 

and with different expertise could compete. For example, 

projects were divided up into different sets of activities and 

into work at different scales. Forest Service staff also used 

different types of funding mechanisms to better target local 

businesses. These steps meant that many different organizations in the region gained access to Recovery Act funding 

and different communities benefited from the associated 

jobs. 

The RRSNF has steep terrain and forest conditions 

that call for labor-intensive management, including hand 

thinning, pruning, piling, and pile burning (fig. 21). Southwestern Oregon is home to many forestry support workers. 

Over 20 contracting businesses in the four-county study 

area containing RRSNF lands have the capacity to do this 

type of labor-intensive work. These businesses range in 

size from a few to more than 200 employees. Hazardous 

fuel reduction projects on the RRSNF were implemented 

using 53 contracts and 7 agreements. Contracts ranged in 

size from $100,000 to $1 million. Only four of the contracts 

went to contractors outside the four-county area. Of the 

16 The information in this section is from Davis and Moseley 2011. 

For additional discussion of this case study, see Key Findings 7 

and 8.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

agreements, two went to state and county agencies that were 

able to keep their foresters from being laid off and maintain 

their organizational capacity; one went to a local nonprofit 

organization to support work taking place under a 10-year 

stewardship agreement for forest restoration; and three went 

to a local youth job corps organization to support youth 

crews. Forest staff intentionally broke the work up into different types and sizes, mixing and matching arrangements 

to use both contracts and agreements so that many different 

organizations in the region could participate in the work and 

benefit from associated jobs. 

Local contractors were not only able to keep their work 

crews employed because of the recovery projects, some 

hired additional employees to handle the work. Because this 

work was labor-intensive, many jobs were reported during 

the 2010 field season: 431 FTEs between April and June 

and 400 FTEs between July and September. Despite the 

large number of jobs involving manual labor in hazardous 

fuel reduction, they were generally lower paying than those 

entailing equipment and mechanical treatments, with job 

quality highly variable. Although these are rarely familywage, year-round jobs, workers were at least earning some 

income, and more families were able to benefit from the 

labor-intensive work.

California’s North Coast—Six Rivers 

National Forest Roadside Brush Removal17

The Six Rivers National Forest (SRNF) in northern California received $1,014,000 to remove brush along 749 miles of 

its 2,989 miles of forest roads. Brush removal increases road 

and fire safety, improves access to the forest, and helps prevent resource damage. The SRNF separates brush removal 

projects from other road maintenance projects, making 

it possible to award brush removal projects to businesses 

that lack the wide range of equipment needed to undertake 

more comprehensive road maintenance work. The forest 

awarded brush removal projects to four different recipients 

to accomplish the large volume of recovery-funded brush 

removal work quickly, spread project benefits to diverse 

recipients, and maximize job creation. Although the SRNF 

typically contracts with mechanical operators for roadside 

brush removal, removing brush by hand creates more 

jobs than does removing it by machine (fig. 22). Thus, the 

recovery project was awarded to two mechanical operators 

and two organizations that maintain hand crews for natural 

resource work. 

Two recipients were local contractors with whom the 

SRNF had existing indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity 

contracts for mechanical brush removal. Adding task orders 

to these contracts allowed recovery money to be obligated 

quickly. The forest also put an additional contract out for 

competitive bid that was awarded to one of these same 

Figure 21—The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has steep 

terrain and forest conditions that call for labor-intensive management, including hand thinning, pruning, piling, and pile burning. 

17 The information in this section is from Charnley 2011. For 

additional discussion of this project, see Key Finding 8.

Emily Jane Davis
25

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

contractors, a two-person, father-son business that specializes in brush removal and has undertaken contract work 

for the SRNF for several years. The second contractor is a 

diversified construction contracting business having 15 to 

20 core employees, 2 of whom worked on the project. This 

was its first brush removal project on the SRNF.

The forest supervisor wanted to distribute project 

money more widely in local counties. Therefore, the SRNF 

also established agreements with two small, local nonprofit 

organizations that have natural resource work crews with 

the capacity to undertake brush removal by hand. One of 

these is a tribal organization that offers employment opportunities and job training programs to American Indians who 

reside in local counties. Through this agreement, they were 

able to employ two six-person crews composed of local tribe 

members. The Recovery Act encouraged agencies to support tribes when spending recovery funds, and doing so was 

an objective of the forest supervisor. The other agreement 

was with a local Resource Conservation District that hired 

two six-person crews to work on the project. This was the 

first time either group had done brush removal work for the 

forest. Using agreements to undertake brush removal work 

is a new approach for the SRNF on this type of project. 

Agreements can be used to obligate money quickly and to 

target local groups for work opportunities. 

Lesson Learned 

Forest Service employees can increase the local 

community benefits associated with undertaking 

regular project work by implementing projects 

in ways that intentionally enhance these benefits, 

drawing on Recovery Act examples and experiences. 

Forest Service employees can often make choices about 

how to implement project work on the ground, and what 

kind of work mechanism to use to accomplish it (e.g., 

in-house crews, service contracts, stewardship contracts, 

or agreements). They may also have leeway to choose 

who to give project work to, and through outreach can 

play an important role in making local groups aware of 

work opportunities and how to gain access to them. The 

Recovery Act prompted the Forest Service to make local 

community benefit a priority in implementing project 

work. Doing so created an opportunity for the Forest 

Service to develop strategies for maximizing the social and 

economic benefits associated with accomplishing work on 

the ground. A number of strategies were highlighted here. 

For example, implementing projects in a way that breaks 

them into different sizes and types, that uses a variety of 

funding mechanisms, and that draws on diverse ways of 

getting the work done made it possible to take advantage of 

a range of skills and capacities in local communities. The 

case studies described here suggest that agency employees 

committed to rural community sustainability could make 

a difference in the future by continuing to implement projects in ways that make local community benefit a priority.

Figure 22—Roadside brush removal being conducted by hand 

crews on the Six Rivers National Forest, California.

Susan Charnley
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Key Finding 6: The Forest Service Builds on 

Old Partnerships and Develops New Ones

Relationship-building between the Forest Service 

and project recipients and stakeholders has been 

an important outcome of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act.

A children’s song advises, “Make new friends, but keep the 

old. One is silver and the other’s gold.” That recommendation was put into practice in the implementation of Forest 

Service Recovery Act projects. Some Forest Service units, 

concerned about the tight timeframe for conducting the 

projects, built on existing partnerships while others took 

advantage of this funding opportunity to build bridges and 

partner with groups with whom they had not previously 

worked. Recovery Act case studies from Montana and 

North Carolina demonstrate how old and new partners 

collaborated with the Forest Service to accomplish social, 

economic, and ecological objectives.

Route of the Olympian, Montana18

As previously discussed, the Lolo National Forest’s Superior Ranger District has been working for years to develop 

the Route of the Olympian in Mineral County, Montana, 

a multi-use trail that would link to Idaho’s popular Route 

of the Hiawatha and a vast trail system in that state and 

Washington, with the potential to extend the Route of the 

Olympian all the way across Montana. The Mineral County 

Challenge, funded in part by the state of Montana to bring 

together stakeholders to define feasible new economic 

opportunities, identified eight economic development 

projects for the county, five focusing on recreation (Murray 

2010). Evidence of the importance of recreation to economic 

sustainability can be found in neighboring counties in 

Idaho, where businesses have developed along bicycle trails 

that have earned Idaho its ranking as the No. 1 mountain 

biking state in the United States by the International Mountain Biking Association.

Several partners have been involved in activities related 

to development of the Route of the Olympian. Montana’s 

Recreation Trails program has provided partial funding for 

the purchase of land along the route. The Five Valleys Land 

Trust has served as a broker and negotiator for many of 

these purchases, “loaning” the funding needed to purchase 

land parcels until public funding could be secured. A leader 

in the Trust describes their commitment to partnering on 

this project: “It is important to us that Five Valleys is able to 

assist with important acquisitions that add significantly to 

the rich recreational and economic opportunities in western 

Montana” (USDA FS 2009b). The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to create a 

nationwide network of trails along former rail lines and connecting corridors, has been consulting on this project since 

its inception. The organization conducted a study describing 

the potential for development of the old Milwaukee Trail 

across Montana. Although funding has been available for 

acquiring land and undertaking some smaller projects, 

major work on the route was delayed by the inability to fund 

a required engineering assessment of the repairs needed on 

the rail bed’s Dominion tunnel and trestle.

When the Forest Service’s Northern Region requested 

proposals for Recovery Act funding, Superior District staff 

saw an opportunity to move forward with the Route of 

the Olympian. This investment allowed the Forest Service 

to follow up on commitments to partners who had made 

earlier investments in moving the trail forward, and thereby 

encourage these partners to continue to work with the 

agency on recreation projects. The project also allowed 

the agency to demonstrate to local communities along the 

trail that the agency is committed to helping them expand 

economic opportunities based on recreation on public lands.

Not only is the Recovery Act funding helping complete the first segment of the Route of the Olympian, but it 

also has opened the door for a new partnership with local 

community members. Because management of the trail will 

necessitate balancing motorized and nonmotorized needs 

for recreation and daily travel, the Superior District ranger 

formed a collaborative group to help develop the proposed 18 The information in this section is based on Sturtevant et al. 

2011b. For additional discussion of this case study, see Key 

Findings 3 and 4.
27

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

action for analysis required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The benefits of the group have yet to be 

realized in terms of generating support for a trail management plan. However, the relationships that are developing 

among stakeholders as a result of the group interactions will 

help the agency and residents work together collaboratively 

in the future, benefiting both the national forest and local 

communities.

Cheoah River Nonnative Invasive Plant 

Control, North Carolina19

The Cheoah Ranger District of the Nantahala National 

Forest saw the Recovery Act funding as an opportunity 

to implement a significant invasive species control regime 

that would protect a listed species and provide temporary 

employment in one of North Carolina’s poorest counties. 

A number of long-standing partners in invasives control, 

including those brought together under the Southern 

Appalachian Cooperative Weed Management Partnership, 

were involved in the Recovery Act project. The project was 

developed to complement and leverage control efforts put 

in place by Alcoa (an electric power company), the North 

Carolina Department of Transportation, and the Little 

Tennessee Land Trust. In addition to these long-standing 

partnerships, the district used participating agreements to 

target two new collaborators—the Western North Carolina 

Alliance (WNCA) and the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians (EBCI). The WNCA was brought in to supervise 

and train field crews and monitor control efforts. They 

were well-qualified for this responsibility because of their 

earlier investments in invasives education, identification, 

and eradication. The forest also felt that by working with the 

WNCA they could build a shared understanding of issues 

that had, in the past, brought the WNCA and Forest Service 

to loggerheads. Another new partner was Vocational Opportunities of Cherokee, Inc., a temporary employment service 

working with Cherokee who have disabilities or barriers 

to employment; it supplied two five-person crews of EBCI 

workers. Although it was necessary for the Forest Service to 

spend time helping the EBCI learn the contracting process, 

they and EBCI now have valuable experience and a model 

for collaborating in the future. This new partnership has 

helped the forest establish a relationship with the tribe, 

provided EBCI members with experience that make them 

competitive for future invasive species control projects, 

and provided knowledge about invasive species control that 

could potentially improve management of Cherokee lands.

The Recovery Act invasives control project identified 

and treated eight species of nonnative invasive plants along 

the Cheoah River (fig. 23). Recognizing the success of the 

project, local Forest Service managers awarded additional 

funds to treat more acres. The work helped forge new 

relationships not only between the Forest Service and the 

new partners they targeted, but also between the two new 

partners themselves, and established a greater sense of community among participating individuals and organizations. 

As observed by a WNCA employee, “Our organization has 

always wanted to work with the Cherokees; many people 

don’t know how and don’t know the connections and this 

just provided a great opportunity to work with them.” 

Figure 23—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding 

helped control eight species of nonnative invasive plants along 

the Cheoah River in North Carolina. 19 The information in this section is based on Morse 2011. For 

additional discussion of this case study, see Key Findings 2 and 4.

Wayde Morse
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Lesson Learned 

Working with existing partners provides a 

strong foundation on which to build in initiating 

new projects, whereas developing new partners 

extends and expands project impacts beyond the 

goals originally envisioned. 

Working with existing partners is often the most expedient 

course when developing and implementing projects, and 

it can solidify or strengthen these important relationships. 

However, a significant infusion of funds such as that provided by the Recovery Act provides a unique opportunity to 

reach out to new partners. These new partners can provide 

access to new networks, bringing the Forest Service into 

contact with a broader array of stakeholders than originally 

envisioned. New partners can serve as conduits to new 

funding mechanisms, expanding a project’s impacts beyond 

what was originally planned. Finally, new partners can aid 

the Forest Service in better appreciating new sets of values 

and better understanding others’ ways of looking at natural 

resource issues, increasing agency experiences with diverse 

publics representing the broad array of perspectives held by 

the American people.

Key Finding 7: High Funding Levels 

Create Opportunities for Larger and 

More Strategic Projects

Economic recovery funds made it possible to 

accomplish work of a type and at a scale that 

would not have happened otherwise, with 

important social and environmental benefits. 

Recovery Act funding often came at a scale that far 

exceeded normal annual national forest budgets in areas 

such as infrastructure maintenance and improvement, fuels 

treatments, and invasive species control. National forests 

and some state and private recipients took advantage of 

these elevated funding levels to make large and sometimes 

transformative investments. Ecosystem restoration projects, 

such as fuel reduction and invasive plant treatments, were 

carried out at a landscape level following strategic plans 

Figure 24—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

funds supported brush removal on 749 miles of road, or 25 

percent of all Six Rivers National Forest roads, opening up 

many severely overgrown roads that had not been treated 

in years.

intended to shift ecosystems to healthier and more stable 

conditions. Invasive plant projects were designed to demonstrate success while building long-term capacity, awareness, interest, and infrastructure for control. Some funding 

was directed to addressing large maintenance backlogs on 

agency infrastructure, including roads, trails, fuel breaks, 

and facilities. Campgrounds, visitor centers, docks, and 

other recreation facilities were reconstructed, revitalizing key components of regional tourism economies. 

Investments were made in industrial infrastructure, such 

as timber processing and bioenergy, that will facilitate 

implementation of other forest projects (e.g., restoration 

timber sales) in the future. Many project activities, such 

as road maintenance and mapping, will make it possible 

to accomplish other Forest Service projects that would not 

have otherwise been possible. 

Capital Improvement and Maintenance 

Declining budgets on many national forests since the early 

1990s have led to large backlogs of deferred maintenance 

work. For example, on the Six Rivers National Forest in 

California, the annual roadside brush removal budget is 

insufficient to pay for brush removal every 3 to 5 years, 

which is needed in this high rainfall area to keep many 

roads clear. Recovery funds supported brush removal 

on 749 miles of roads, or 25 percent of all SRNF roads, 

opening up many severely overgrown roads that hadn’t 

been treated in years (fig. 24). Project benefits include 

Susan Charnley
29

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

teams. Similarly, on the Huron National Forest in Michigan, 

economic recovery funds are making possible treatments to 

reduce wildfire risk, expand wildlife habitat, and improve 

forest health on over 8,000 acres of national forest land 

through projects that are being strategically planned at a 

landscape scale. This approach contrasts with the piecemeal approach that forests normally must take as funding 

becomes available. 

Recovery Act funding also enabled larger and more 

strategic invasive species control efforts. In Alabama, 

$6.281 million of Recovery Act funding was used to start 

the Alabama Cogongrass Control Center, which is implementing a statewide adaptive restoration plan to contain 

and control a particularly noxious nonnative invasive weed, 

cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica L. [Beauv.]), which threatens to transform productive timber and wildlife lands into 

fire-prone ecological deserts. Ad hoc and piecemeal efforts 

to contain extremely invasive plants like cogongrass have 

little chance of success. Work must be carried out strategically, at a landscape level, and over continuous periods to 

Figure 25—Fuel management projects on Oregon’s Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest focused on transportation and recreation 

corridors, and areas near communities.

better visibility for safer travel, increased access for fire 

control and other activities, and the ability to identify 

and accomplish needed road maintenance and restoration 

projects that prevent resource damage. Recovery funding 

is also supporting trail maintenance at a scale not normally 

accomplished on the Six Rivers. The forest’s annual target 

for trail maintenance in fiscal year 2009 was 13 miles, and 

14 miles in 2010. With recovery money, the Six Rivers will 

be able to perform maintenance on 122 miles of trails.

In Arizona’s Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, 

Recovery Act funding has been directed toward major 

deferred maintenance projects on several campgrounds; 

reconstruction of 26 miles of a major all-terrain vehicle 

trail; reconstruction and surfacing of 3 miles of the Rim 

Vista Trail; and resurfacing, stabilizing, and improving 

drainage on roads within the national forest that are important recreation corridors connecting to local communities. 

Not only do these projects mitigate the environmental risks 

associated with aging restrooms, trail erosion, and road 

degradation; they will have lasting economic benefits for 

local tourism-dependent communities.

Ecosystem Restoration

Many Recovery Act ecosystem restoration projects also 

were implemented at a much larger scale than projects typically funded by annual national forest budgets. The ability 

to carry out these projects allowed managers to implement 

strategic approaches to fuel treatment and invasive plant 

control at landscape scales, thereby increasing the likelihood of long-term success and benefits. Fuel management 

projects on Oregon’s Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

focused on transportation and recreation corridors, and 

areas near communities. Recovery Act funds enabled an 

approach to forest restoration that went beyond the forest’s 

normal projects of limited scope, to larger efforts designed 

to strategically reduce hazardous fuels at a landscape level 

(fig. 25). For example, one 30-acre demonstration project 

expanded to 800 acres with the addition of Recovery Act 

funds. This larger scale of work also helped solidify local 

capacity to undertake future restoration work by virtue of 

training new workers, expanding contractor capabilities, 

and bringing about the formation of stakeholder advisory 

Chris French
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

significantly reduce the likelihood of recolonization. The 

Alabama Cogongrass Control Center has a strong outreach 

component that raises landowner and public awareness of 

invasive species and their impacts, an important ingredient 

for long-term control and funding. Furthermore, the project 

is training forestry consultants and chemical applicators in 

identification and control of invasive plants. This is creating 

long-term capacity for invasive species control while also 

stimulating an economically viable, new niche industry 

in invasive plant control. Resource managers hope that 

successful, large-scale, and strategic invasive plant control 

projects will bring more funding to address this serious 

ecological threat.

Lesson Learned 

When resources are available, implementing 

larger and more strategic projects can have 

transformative effects on ecosystems and 

communities, produce long-lasting impacts, 

and help control future costs. 

The Recovery Act funding of projects at levels beyond the 

normal annual funding level is enabling the Forest Service 

to undertake projects that have transformative effects on 

ecosystems and local communities. Larger and more strategically implemented projects offer the promise of reducing 

fuels and controlling invasive plants over larger landscapes 

in ways that have long-lasting impacts and therefore reduce 

future costs. Collaboration of nonprofit and business 

partners builds the capacity for future contracts that can 

continue and expand work begun under the Recovery Act. 

Significant upgrades to regional recreation infrastructure 

support local tourism-dependent economies. All of these 

projects have provided needed short-term jobs during the 

economic recession while at the same time developing critical infrastructure that lays the groundwork for long-term 

economic and ecological benefits. These examples demonstrate the benefits of larger, strategically planned projects. 

Key Finding 8: Tradeoffs Are Inevitable

The way in which Recovery Act projects were 

developed, administered, and implemented 

sometimes required making tradeoffs between 

maximizing local community benefits and meeting other agency objectives and requirements. 

Implementing Recovery Act projects sometimes compelled 

Forest Service employees to make tradeoffs between maximizing the socioeconomic benefits of projects (consistent 

with the goals of the act) and meeting other Recovery Act 

requirements and agency objectives. Examples described 

here come from the California and Oregon case studies, and 

illustrate tradeoffs between:

• Developing projects quickly vs. developing them 

collaboratively.

• Working with existing partners vs. developing new 

relationships and project beneficiaries.

• Awarding large contracts or agreements to a small 

number of recipients to ease agency administrative 

burdens and obligate money quickly vs. breaking 

projects into smaller pieces and awarding them to 

more recipients to spread project work.

• Creating lots of jobs quickly to create an immediate 

economic stimulus vs. releasing funds over a longer 

period at lower levels to sustain fewer but longer 

term jobs.

• Implementing projects in ways that would maximize 

local community benefits vs. ways that would maximize project efficiency and cost-effectiveness for the 

agency.

• Decisions about how to balance these tradeoffs were 

influenced by agency resources, goals, priorities, 

requirements, and the local context.20

20 The information in this section is from Charnley 2011 and Davis 

and Moseley 2011. For additional discussion of the California 

project, see Key Finding 5. For additonal discussion of the Oregon 

case study, see Key Findings 5 and 7.
31

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Developing Projects Quickly vs. Developing 

Them Collaboratively 

The purpose of the Recovery Act was to infuse a large 

amount of money into the troubled economy to help end the 

continuing economic recession. It was important to spend 

this money as quickly as possible on projects that would 

create jobs, thereby preventing further economic downturn. 

The Recovery Act was signed on February 17, 2009; by 

March 9, 2009, the Forest Service had announced its first 

round of projects selected for funding. Within 5 weeks 

of the act’s signing, the Forest Service had disbursed 10 

percent of its Recovery Act funds to 21 states (Kimbell and 

Brown 2009). By January 2010, a complete list of projects 

had been announced, and by September 30, 2010, the 

agency’s economic recovery funding had been obligated to 

fund projects that will be implemented through September 

2015, the deadline for project completion and spending 

obligated funds. The Forest Service chief directed agency 

units to begin project implementation as quickly as possible 

once funds were obligated.

The rapidity with which the recovery money had to be 

obligated and spent meant that it was difficult to identify 

and recommend projects for funding in a collaborative way; 

there simply wasn’t time. Forest Service units identified 

projects that were “shovel ready” (in that they had already 

received, or didn’t require, NEPA approval) and submitted 

them to the Washington office within days of the Recovery 

Act’s signing. Nearly $4 billion worth of projects were 

submitted for funding; decisions about which to fund were 

made in a short timeframe by agency executives in accordance with several criteria they had developed (see USDA 

FS 2010). Units were then informed of the project selections and charged with implementing them. This process 

and the speed with which it took place meant that projects 

located on Forest Service lands (capital improvement and 

maintenance projects, and 50 percent of the wildland fire 

management-funded projects) could be collaborative in 

terms of project implementation, but not in terms of project 

development and choice. 

The situation was somewhat different for wildland fire 

management projects on state and private lands, for which 

Forest Service executives approved proposed programs 

of work. Specific project selections were left to states 

and tribes and were implemented through state and tribal 

partners, with funds administered through federal financial 

assistance instruments (grants and cooperative agreements) 

(USDA FS 2009c). Wood-to-energy projects also had the 

potential to be developed more collaboratively. 

On Forest Service lands, selected projects were not 

always ones that were the top priority for the unit or its partners. Also, very few projects benefited from coordinated 

project investment by Forest Service units, or by Forest 

Service units and other agencies and partners that could 

leverage joint resources and improve project outcomes. 

Furthermore, the kinds of jobs created did not necessarily 

align with the kinds of jobs lost in communities. Thus, 

spending money quickly sometimes meant spending it less 

strategically and with less local collaboration. 

Working With Existing Partners vs. Developing 

New Relationships and Project Beneficiaries 

It was easiest to spend economic recovery money quickly by 

using funding mechanisms already in place, such as existing indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts, 

stewardship contracts, or agreements to which task orders 

or amendments could be added. It was more time-consuming to advertise new contracts or develop new agreements, 

especially with recipients the Forest Service or a specific 

forest or staff had not worked with before, and who were 

inexperienced with Forest Service administrative processes, 

expectations, and ways of accomplishing work. In cases 

in which Forest Service units had strong collaborative 

partnerships already established, it was possible to draw on 

these relationships and spend money quickly. However, one 

Forest Service criterion in project selection was its capacity 

to benefit a diverse array of workers (USDA FS 2009c). 

Furthermore, the Recovery Act contained direction that the 

Forest Service should, when practicable, carry out projects 

by utilizing youth job corps programs and other partnerships that serve young adults, as well as support tribes and 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

improve tribal lands. Thus, Forest Service personnel had 

to balance the direction to spend money quickly with the 

desire to distribute it to particular kinds of beneficiaries, 

and to a diverse group of recipients, both new and old.

One good example of doing this successfully comes 

from the Six Rivers National Forest in California (SRNF), 

which received nearly half a million dollars of recovery 

money for maintenance work on 122 miles of nonmotorized 

forest trails. The SRNF recreation staff distributed funding 

to three recipients, who were responsible for trails maintenance on different sections of trail in different locations. 

Two of these recipients—the Northwest Youth Corps and 

California Conservation Corps—serve young adults, and 

are organizations that the SRNF had worked with on trail 

maintenance projects for several years (fig. 26). It was quick 

and easy to use recovery money to add task orders to existing agreements between these organizations and the Forest 

Service Pacific Southwest Region. Doing so complied with 

direction in the Recovery Act and benefitted youth from all 

over California and the Pacific Northwest. However, forest 

recreation staff also wished to reach out to a new partner 

and spend recovery money locally, so they used part of 

these funds to develop a new agreement with a small, local 

nonprofit organization having a natural resource crew that 

was part of a local Watershed and Fire Safe Council. Work 

funded through this agreement provided jobs for 10 local 

residents, filling in seasonal gaps in employment for these 

workers, helping them develop new skills, and establishing 

a new relationship that will hopefully lead to more Forest 

Service work opportunities for the crew in the future.

Making Large Awards to Fewer Recipients vs. 

Making Numerous Smaller Awards to a Greater 

Number of Recipients 

To obligate over $1 billion in Recovery Act funds quickly, 

the Forest Service needed to increase its acquisitions 

management capacity. By the end of April 2009, the 

Forest Service had established four Economic Recovery 

Operations Centers (EROCs) around the country that were 

responsible for awarding Recovery Act contracts, grants, 

and agreements (Ernst-Ulrich 2010). These were staffed by 

a combination of agency employees, rehired retirees, and 

contractors. The EROCs faced three major challenges in 

accomplishing their mission: an enormous workload, a need 

for great speed, and a need for consistency. The EROCs 

were under extreme pressure to get projects awarded 

(Ernst-Ulrich 2010). The administrative burden of administering contracts, grants, and agreements could be eased 

by making larger awards to fewer recipients. As described 

under Key Finding 5, however, breaking projects up into 

different sizes and using different funding mechanisms 

to spread the benefits to diverse local recipients and take 

advantage of a range of local capacities was important for 

maximizing local community benefit. The four EROCs and 

the national forests that worked with them differed in the 

extent to which they sought expediency versus strategizing 

with forests about how to award money in a way that would 

benefit a range of local businesses and communities. The 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF) in Oregon 

provides one example of a case in which the Oregon-based 

EROC placed high priority on maximizing benefits to local 

businesses. It was willing to talk through projects with the 

forest and work with them to broadly distribute project 

benefits. The RRSNF received about $45.5 million in 

Recovery Act funds. Between March 2009 and July 2010, 

the forest awarded roughly 71 contracts and 14 agreements 

for projects that included hazardous fuel reduction, habitat 

Figure 26—California Conservation Corps youth crews perform 

trail work on the Six Rivers National Forest.

Susan Charnley
33

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Figure 27—Projects on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

included meadow restoration. 

restoration and enhancement, roads, trails, and toxic mine 

cleanup (fig. 27). These projects ranged widely in amount of 

funding, from under $100,000 to several million dollars.

Creating Many Short-Term Jobs vs. 

Creating Fewer Longer-Term Jobs

Because the Recovery Act was designed to stimulate rapid, 

large-scale job creation and quickly distribute funding, the 

agency’s emphasis was on creating many short-term jobs 

rather than fewer longer term jobs (economic recovery 

funds can be spent up until September 30, 2015). Although 

short-term jobs had many benefits and helped a large 

number of people (see Key Finding 2), tradeoffs associated with this approach are illustrated by the work done in 

southwest Oregon. The RRSNF received over $30 million 

in recovery money to carry out hazardous fuel reduction 

projects. To accomplish a large volume of work quickly with 

a substantial influx of funds, some project recipients purchased new equipment. They worried, however, that after 

the surge of economic recovery work ended, they would 

not obtain future work at the level needed to see returns 

on their investment in this new equipment, and to sustain 

their increased capacity. This was particularly problematic 

because many contractors did not make much profit from 

the recovery work. There was fierce competition for projects 

in southwestern Oregon, with its high unemployment rate 

(around 14 percent) and concentration of contracting businesses; the RRSNF sometimes received over 13 bids per 

contract, especially in the beginning. Because of this highly 

competitive bidding environment, bid prices were very low, 

making it questionable as to whether contractors would 

be able to cover their costs; some who obtained more than 

one contract tried to balance losses on one job with gains 

on another. A second tradeoff that occurred on the RRSNF 

was that employers had to balance the desire to hire a large 

number of workers for a shorter period and accomplish fuel 

reduction in a cost-efficient and timely manner with the 

desire to hire fewer workers for longer periods, providing 

longer term employment and more consistent work quality.

In Michigan, given the high rate of local unemployment and the state’s troubled economic outlook, employees 

hired with Recovery Act funds to work on the Huron Fuels 

Treatment project also questioned whether benefits to the 

local community might have been greater had fewer people 

been hired, but for a longer period. Although fewer families 

would have directly benefited, those that did would have had 

economic stability for longer. These employees now look at 

the amount of work that remains to be done on the national 

forest and consider whether longer employment might have 

also produced greater benefits to the land. 

Maximizing Local Community Benefit vs. 

Maximizing Project Efficiency and CostEffectiveness for the Agency 

Another tradeoff some Forest Service employees had 

to make was between accomplishing work in the most 

efficient and cost-effective way for the agency vs. spending money to maximize job creation and provide workers 

Emily Jane Davis
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

with family-wage jobs, which might be more expensive for 

the agency. A good example is the SRNF roadside brush 

removal project described under Key Finding 5. Brush 

removal projects can be done by hand or by machine. Hand 

work is labor-intensive and increases job creation. Hand 

work also results in a more aesthetically pleasing outcome, 

so is a good approach to use on roads that receive a lot of 

visitor traffic. However, all agency interviewees concurred 

that mechanical brush removal is more efficient in time and 

cost. As one Forest Service interviewee put it, “...if we’re 

given a limited amount of money and we’re expected to do a 

maximum amount of work, we’re not going to hire laborintensive contractors. But if we’re told that...we need to get 

the money out into the economy and here is a whole bunch 

of money, then that’s okay...we can put a ton of people to 

work out there.” The cost of mechanical brushing averaged 

$1,149 per mile, and the cost of brushing by hand averaged 

$2,417 per mile.

Another dimension of this tradeoff relates to how 

much workers should be paid. The Service Contract Act 

and the Davis-Bacon Act stipulate that federal contractors 

should be paid prevailing wages, depending on the types 

of work performed, which are specified. These acts do not 

apply to wages paid under agreements. One brush removal 

agreement recipient set wages for crew members that were 

comparable to contract prevailing wages, but as a result 

could not accomplish the work for the estimated bid price. 

Forest managers we interviewed felt it was irresponsible to 

expect taxpayers to pay these wages when the work could 

be completed by a different recipient at lower cost using 

a hand crew paid lower wages. This example illustrates 

the tradeoffs involved when creating family-wage jobs in 

agency efforts to promote local economic well-being.

A third dimension pertains to the use of agreements 

to accomplish work. Roadside brush removal typically is 

carried out using contracts, but agreements made it possible 

to obligate money quickly and target specific groups for 

recovery funds. Some Forest Service interviewees were 

frustrated by the use of agreements for brush removal 

because they perceived them as being less binding than 

contracts from a legal standpoint, and as providing a lower 

level of assurance that work would be accomplished according to agency specifications. 

Lesson Learned

Often projects and ways of implementing them 

that are a win-win from an agency and community standpoint can be identified; other times 

tradeoffs are inevitable. Understanding the 

tradeoffs between maximizing agency vs. community benefits is important; decisions about how 

to balance tradeoffs will be influenced by agency 

resources, goals, priorities, and local context. 

The case-study examples presented in this report demonstrate that projects can be located and implemented in 

ways that accomplish high-priority Forest Service goals 

while optimizing community social and economic benefits 

associated with this work. However, projects can’t always 

be expected to produce optimal outcomes while simultaneously maximizing agency and community benefits. At 

times, agency requirements, direction, budgets, priorities, 

and other variables may necessitate making tradeoffs 

between what is best from an agency standpoint and what is 

most beneficial to communities. Even though Recovery Act 

projects were specifically designed to prioritize local job 

creation and to contribute to socioeconomic well-being in 

economically distressed counties, conditions and constraints 

sometimes made tradeoffs between priorities inevitable. 

Careful consideration of how to best meet the dual goals 

of healthy forests and healthy communities is important to 

promote understanding of when and how tradeoffs need 

to be made, for whom and for what purpose, and how best 

to minimize the negative impacts of these tradeoffs. It is 

also important to evaluate short- vs. long-term tradeoffs; 

for example, actions that appear to be more efficient for the 

agency in the short term may not be so in the long term.
35

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Key Finding 9: Expect the Unexpected

Recovery Act projects had unintended and 

unexpected consequences for the Forest Service, 

with implications for local communities and the 

agency—some positive, some negative. 

The Recovery Act had five goals, and the Forest Service 

directed staff to develop projects that would achieve these 

goals while addressing needs related to the agency’s mission 

of sustaining and improving the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands. In addition 

to the social and economic impacts associated with Recovery Act projects in communities, the Forest Service experienced a number of unintended or unexpected consequences, 

both positive and negative, as a result of implementing their 

Recovery Act projects. Some of these consequences have 

implications for community well-being, as described below.

Huron Fuels Treatment, Michigan21

The Huron Fuels Treatment project in Michigan’s lower 

peninsula demonstrated both positive and negative unintended consequences. Limits on what Recovery Act funds 

could purchase meant that the Huron National Forest 

(HNF) had to expend funds from its forest accounts (annual 

allocations of appropriated dollars) to fully support this 

Recovery Act project. Recovery Act funding could not be 

used to buy durable goods, so the HNF had to use its annual 

allocation to outfit crews with basic equipment, including 

hardhats, radios, and chain saws. Restrictions on the use of 

micro-purchase check-writing authority meant that local 

small businesses that did not accept credit cards could not 

benefit from the Huron Fuels Treatment project. In addition, 

with no Recovery Act funds available to agency units after 

September 30, 2010, an unintended consequence will be 

further expenditures from forest accounts to manage Recovery Act contracts that extend over the next several years. 

This may compromise the HNF’s ability to undertake other 

project work in the near future, and in turn to support local 

jobs associated with this new work.

On the positive side, staff on the HNF believe that 

implementation of Recovery Act projects will pay dividends 

in the future in the form of increased funding allocations. 

Staff believe that work conducted as a result of Recovery 

Act funding demonstrates their ability to meet increased 

targets. Thus, one unintended positive consequence is that 

Forest Service units receiving Recovery Act funds likely are 

enhancing their competitiveness for future agency funding. 

Forest Service Recovery Act funding allowed national 

forests to make significant progress on NEPA-ready 

mission-critical work. On the HNF, staff estimated that they 

were able to cut in half an approximately 3 years’ backlog 

of NEPA-approved projects. However, NEPA analyses could 

not be paid for with Recovery Act dollars, so forests could 

not use these funds to replenish their stock of NEPA-ready 

projects. An unintended negative consequence is that future 

appropriated funds will need to be used to rebuild the stock 

of NEPA-ready projects to maintain economic benefits 

to local communities while pursuing forest management 

priorities. Some stakeholders reported concerns that the 

depletion of NEPA stock could result in the unintended 

consequence of reduced project accomplishments in the 

future, thus less work for local communities until the stock 

of NEPA-ready projects is replenished. 

In addition to moving forward on new NEPA-ready 

projects, Recovery Act funding allowed forests to make 

progress on some other projects that had been stalled by a 

lack of funding. Occasionally, approved forest management 

projects are delayed because agency funds are not available 

for necessary preliminary work such as surveying landlines 

or marking timber. On the HNF, some of these tasks were 

completed as part of Recovery Act projects, allowing stalled 

projects on adjacent land to move forward.

In most locations, Forest Service employees were told 

that Recovery Act projects were their top priority. For some 

this meant that regular tasks, such as NEPA analysis, could 

be temporarily set aside; but for others, such as those with 

fire responsibilities, this meant that Recovery Act work was 

added to ongoing duties. The tight timeframe and overall 

increased workload for recovery project planning, implementation, and oversight resulted, in some cases, in the 

unintended consequence of highly taxed and stressed Forest 21 The information in this section is based on Jakes 2011. For 

additional discussion of this case study, see Key Findings 2 and 7.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Service employees. However, agency employees said that 

they would participate in a similar project in the future, just 

not next year. 

During Recovery Act planning and implementation, 

some Forest Service employees on the HNF complained that 

the new work obliged them to give up details (temporary 

jobs to fill vacancies that are an opportunity to broaden 

their work experience) and other training opportunities that 

help them advance in the agency. However, by working on 

the Recovery Act project, Forest Service employees also 

gained such valuable job experience as project supervision, 

management, and administration (fig. 28). For example, the 

Huron Fuels Treatment Project was implemented using an 

incident command team approach that is commonly used to 

fight wildfires and manage other natural disasters. Working 

as a member of this team qualified some career employees 

for new positions on wildfire and other future incidents. In 

addition, prior to the Recovery Act project, the HNF had not 

used stewardship contracting to accomplish forest management goals. The experience gained using this contracting 

authority for the Recovery Act project, including designing 

and marketing sales with submerchantable material, should 

facilitate its expanded use in the future. Thus, an unintended consequence of the Recovery Act projects was an 

increase in staff skills and abilities.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and 

White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona22

In Arizona, unintended negative consequences related to 

funding were also seen. Partners in the White Mountain 

Stewardship Contract (WMSC) initially were under the 

impression that Recovery Act funding would supplement 

appropriated funding for the WMSC, increasing the number 

of projects undertaken beyond that originally planned prior 

to the Recovery Act. Partners later concluded that Recovery 

Act dollars had replaced some of the appropriated funding 

for the WMSC. They became frustrated by the missed 

opportunity they perceived to use a significant increase in 

funding (with Recovery Act dollars added to the expected 

WMSC allocation) to expand industrial capacity and forest 

restoration activities, producing further benefits for the 

local community. The local community is now concerned 

that future funding for the WMSC has been jeopardized 

because Recovery Act funds were substituted for some of 

the WMSC-appropriated funds. Promises by the agency to 

the local communities about WMSC funding are perceived 

to have been broken. Thus, an unintended negative consequence of Recovery Act funding has been some increase in 

mistrust of the agency by the local community. Perceived 

unresolved challenges or negative impacts may hurt future 

collaborative efforts.

Figure 28—Forest Service employees on the Huron National 

Forest gained supervisory and project management and 

administration experience that will benefit them in the future. 

22 The information in this section is from Burns et al. 2011. For 

additional discussion of this case study, see Key Findings 1 and 7.

Huron National Forest
37

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Lesson Learned 

Develop policies that give local implementing 

units the flexibility to enhance the positive and 

minimize the negative unintended consequences 

of policy implementation. 

It is not possible to foresee all of the impacts that a policy 

will have. Actions taken to implement policies at the local 

level can have unintended and unexpected consequences 

for agencies and communities, as described here. Flexibility 

and adaptive management make it possible for agencies to 

address any unanticipated negative consequences as they 

arise. The Recovery Act had stringent monitoring and 

implementation requirements, but nevertheless, local units 

were able to enhance unanticipated positive impacts to 

balance some of the negative. Recognizing and highlighting 

positive impacts and what engenders them can help agencies increase these kinds of benefits in the course of policy 

implementation in the future. 

Key Finding 10: Projects Meet Recovery 

Act Goals, Create Community Benefits, 

and Help the Forest Service

Forest Service economic recovery projects helped 

meet the goals of the Recovery Act and demonstrated that Forest Service investments in rural 

wealth creation can have far-reaching social and 

economic benefits for communities, as well as 

positive outcomes for the agency in meeting its 

goals. 

The Recovery Act had five goals, identified in the introduction to this report. As described in key findings one through 

nine, Forest Service economic recovery projects contributed 

to at least three of these. Our results confirm that these 

projects helped preserve and create jobs, which should contribute to long-term economic recovery (goal 1). In doing 

so, the projects typically assisted people heavily affected 

by the recession, especially because the agency targeted job 

creation in counties experiencing high economic distress 

(goal 2). Many Forest Service projects represent investments 

in environmental protection and other infrastructure that 

will have long-term economic benefits (goal 4). These longer term benefits are likely to be more fully realized when 

the economy recovers because people will be more likely to 

travel and take advantage of new recreation infrastructure, 

stimulating local economies as they spend money in communities near Forest Service lands. In addition, stronger 

markets for wood products and increased capital to invest in 

infrastructure development will help communities build on 

existing timber-based economies and encourage development of forest restoration economies. Economic recovery 

will also make it more likely that funding can be sustained 

to support restoration activities such as invasive species 

control and hazardous fuels reduction.

Forest Service economic recovery projects did more 

than meet the goals of the Recovery Act. The lessons 

learned from these projects, the Recovery Act process, and 

this socioeconomic assessment demonstrate that Forest 

Service mission-related work (including capital improvement and maintenance projects, environmental restoration 

projects, and wood-to-energy projects) can create significant 

local economic opportunities that have short- and long-term 

socioeconomic benefits for rural communities near Forest 

Service lands. How did the Forest Service generate rural 

wealth through its Recovery Act projects? Examples are 

many, as have been described in this report. One key strategy was to implement projects that created direct, indirect, 

and induced jobs in counties having high economic need. 

As figure 6 indicates (see page 6), between 2,400 and 6,200 

direct, full-time equivalent jobs were created quarterly 

between the third quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter 

of 2010 through Recovery Act money, with the number 

increasing over time. It is important to note that these job 

numbers represent full-time equivalent jobs for the quarter. 

Because many economic recovery jobs were short term or 

part time rather than full time during the quarter in which 

they were reported, a much higher number of individuals were actually employed by Forest Service economic 

recovery projects each quarter. Thus, these jobs had a wider 

economic impact.

Other key strategies included:

• Creating short-term jobs that helped people piece 

together rural livelihoods.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

• Investing in long-term, sustainable job creation by 

developing physical infrastructure projects.

• Building the capacity of individuals and organizations to engage in work related to forest management 

in the future.

• Implementing projects in ways that increased the 

number of local people employed by them.

• Developing projects that built on local capacity and 

addressed local community needs and priorities.

The social benefits associated with Recovery Act job 

creation ranged from relationship building and improved 

physical fitness to increased self-esteem and heightened 

awareness of the natural world.

At the same time, the agency benefitted from the 

Recovery Act by successfully accomplishing a large 

backlog of projects and implementing new projects that 

were needed, some of which occurred on a much larger 

scale than would have been possible otherwise, enhancing 

their environmental outcomes. Moreover, by building the 

capacity of communities to engage in forest management, 

restoration, and stewardship activities, recovery projects 

will have positive benefits for forests and the Forest Service 

in the future. Thus, recovery projects also had positive 

outcomes for the agency in meeting its goals. 

Lesson Learned 

Lessons can be learned from the Recovery Act 

projects that will help the Forest Service design 

projects that place a high priority on helping 

rural communities thrive while contributing to 

forest stewardship and restoration, consistent 

with USDA’s strategic goals.

Forest Service Recovery Act projects provide examples 

of different project types and the kinds of benefits they 

generate for local communities and for the Forest Service 

in meeting its mission. These projects, detailed in Charnley 

et al. 2011, were all intended to promote short-term job 

creation. Nevertheless, the projects can be divided into two 

broad categories—those that focused solely on short-term 

job creation, and those that also aimed to contribute to 

long-term economic development. Highlighting the kinds 

of benefits that different project types generate can help 

managers make decisions about what types of projects to 

fund in the future, and how to implement them.

Many projects had the principal benefit of hiring people 

to perform needed work in areas such as trail maintenance, 

roadside brush removal, fuels reduction, and nonnative 

invasive plant control. These projects provided short-term 

jobs that were often available to local people and, when 

larger projects were broken up into smaller contracts, were 

open to diverse skillsets and institutions. Although most 

of these jobs were short term and often seasonal, the work 

helped people acquire skills and experience that may enable 

them to find future employment with the Forest Service, 

as well as with other agencies and businesses. The Forest 

Service can also benefit from having a local work force with 

experience in many of the core tasks that are part of forest 

management. Because they involved many diverse partners, 

these projects often served to build new and strengthen 

existing partnerships between the Forest Service, nonprofits, tribes, youth conservation corps, and businesses. They 

also provided many long-term ecosystem health and safety 

benefits resulting from restoration of ecosystems. 

Projects that focused on long-term economic development typically emphasized infrastructure maintenance and 

improvement—such as building repair and improvement, 

trestle repair, bike path development, improvements to 

sawmills and biomass facilities, and even development of 

“soft infrastructure” (e.g., human capacity, relationships, 

institutions) for invasive plant control. Such projects had a 

different set of benefits. Often, short-term work was highly 

specialized and there were no local people or firms with 

the appropriate skills and experience. In these cases, the 

contracts for this work went to companies from outside 

the area, although locals were often subcontracted to do 

some of the work. Many of the local impacts of these types 

of projects are expected to accrue long into the future. 

For example, investments in mill infrastructure created 

new permanent jobs and helped keep complex industrial 

networks operating, which maintained and created jobs 

that were not counted in Recovery Act reporting. Other 

projects strengthened tourism infrastructure that provides 
39

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

the foundation for many rural communities. These longterm benefits provide critical support to local economies 

both through jobs created and through the multiplier effects 

that occur in communities and regions. At the same time, 

long-term economic revitalization of local economies often 

provides critical support to the Forest Service in carrying 

out its mission, including ecosystem management, recreation, and economic development.

The Forest Service can learn a great deal from Recovery Act projects that will be valuable to carrying out its 

mission in the future. As indicated above, different types 

of projects provided different kinds of benefits, spatial 

impacts, and timeframes. The projects that were proposed 

and implemented, the ways that contracts were awarded, 

and the efforts of individual employees and work groups in 

establishing partnerships all influenced the type of benefits 

generated, the distribution of the benefits, and the creation 

of long-term capacity and infrastructure. The Forest Service 

has multiple objectives in carrying out its work on both 

national forests and private lands. Careful attention to these 

strategic efforts to provide benefits across the full spectrum 

of objectives can help in carrying out the Forest Service 

mission.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the contributions of our collaborators 

to these key findings and lessons learned, whose research 

and insights we relied on in developing them: Sam Burns, 

Emily Jane Davis, Jessi Kershner, Wayde Morse, Cassandra 

Moseley, Victoria Sturtevant, and Thurman Wilson. We 

are extremely grateful to our research assistant, Sophia 

Polasky, who gathered and analyzed the secondary data 

reported here, and helped with report preparation. We thank 

Chuck Harris, Rebecca McLain, Richard Philips, and Jaelith 

Rivera for their insightful review comments and suggestions for improvement.

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Miles 1.609 Kilometers

Acres .405 Hectares

References

Beckley, T.M.; Martz, D.; Nadeau, S.; Wall, E.; Reimer, 

B. 2008. Multiple capacities, multiple outcomes: delving 

deeper into the meaning of community capacity. Journal 

of Rural and Community Development. 3(3): 56–75.

Burns, S.; Dietrich, J.; Mattor, K.; Wilson, T. 2011. A 

socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service Recovery 

Act projects: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and 

White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona. In: Charnley, 

S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. eds. Socioeconomic 

assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act projects: eight case studies. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 23–42.

Carmical, D. 2011. Recovery Act weekly update for 

February 4, 2011, Friday message. [Washington, 

DC]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

[Washington Office].

Charnley, S. 2011. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest 

Service Recovery Act projects on California’s North 

Coast. In: Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. eds. 

Socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: eight case 

studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 43–69.

Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. eds. 2011.

Socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: eight case 

studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 168 p.

Chaskin, R. 2001. Building community capacity: 

a definitional framework and case studies from a 

comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs 

Review. 36: 291–323.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Davis, E.J.; Moseley, C. 2011. A socioeconomic 

assessment of Forest Service Recovery Act projects: 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Oregon. 

In: Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. eds. 

Socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: eight case 

studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 147–165.

Ernst-Ulrich, G. 2010. Economic recovery operations 

centers exemplify agency’s proactive spirit. 

In: FS Today. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. June 8, 2010. http://www.fs.fed.us/

fstoday/100604/02National%20News/arra.html. 

(February 4, 2011).

Idaho Smallwood Partners. 2010. Woody Biomass 

Utilization Partnership. http://smallwood.

idahobiomasspartners.net/. ( October 7, 2010).

Jakes, P. 2011. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest 

Service Recovery Act projects: Huron fuels treatment 

project, Michigan. In: Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, 

J., tech. eds. Socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: eight 

case studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 87–103.

Kimbell, A.R.; Brown, H. 2009. Restoring hope: the 

United States Forest Service’s economic recovery 

program. In: Impacts of global economic turbulence on 

the forest sector: publication from the 19th session of the 

FAO committee on forestry. Rome. http://www.fao.org/

docrep/012/i1025e/i1025e05.htm. (February 3, 2011).

Lindlof, T.R.; Taylor, B.C. 2002. Qualitative 

communication research methods. 2nd ed. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 376 p. 

McCollum, D.; Miller, S. 2010. Biking the Hiawatha 

Trail: preliminary results from a survey of users. 26 p. 

Unpublished document. On file with: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

McLaughlin, M.W. 1987. Learning from experience: 

lessons from policy implementation. Educational 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 9(2): 171–178.

Morse, W. 2011. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest 

Service Recovery Act projects: Cheoah River nonnative 

invasive plant control, North Carolina. In: Charnley, 

S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. eds. Socioeconomic 

assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act projects: eight case studies. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 125–145.

Murray, J.R. 2010. Mineral Challenge chooses eight 

economic development projects. Clark Fork Chronicle 

(July 2). http://www.clarkforkchronicle.com/article.

php/20100702110549837. (August 2010).

Recovery.gov. 2011. Recipient reported data [Database]. 

National summaries. http://www.recovery.gov/FAQ/

Pages/DownloadCenter.aspx. (January 31, 2011).

Schelhas, J. 2011. A socioeconomic assessment of 

Forest Service Recovery Act projects: The Alabama 

Cogongrass Control Center. In: Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; 

Schelhas, J., tech. eds. Socioeconomic assessment of 

Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act projects: eight case studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-831. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

5–22.

Schneider, B. 2010. Make new rail trail bicycle only. New 

West, Travel and Outdoors. May 6, 2010. http://www.

newwest.net/topic/article/make_new_rail_trail_bicycle_

only/C41/L41/. (August 2010).
41

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Sturtevant, V.; Kershner, J.; Jakes, P. 2011a. A 

socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service Recovery 

Act projects: Evergreen Forest Products dry kiln and 

restacker, Idaho. In: Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., 

tech. eds. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: eight 

case studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 71–86.

Sturtevant, V.; Kershner, J.; Jakes, P. 2011b. A 

socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service Recovery 

Act projects: Route of the Olympian Rails to Trails, 

Montana. In: Charnley, S.; Jakes, P.; Schelhas, J., tech. 

eds. A socioeconomic assessment of Forest Service 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects: eight 

case studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-831. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 71–86.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2009a. Forest Service activities and the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: estimating 

measures of economic distress. Administrative report. 

On file with: Susan Charnley, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 

97205.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2009b. Remaining parcels acquired for railroad 

trail. Lolo National Forest News and Events. (August 6). 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_

SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gjAwhwtDDw9_

AI8zPyhQoY6BdkOyoCAGixyPg!/?ss=110116&navtype

=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=STELPRDB5084024&

navid=180000000000000&pnavid=null&position=New

s&ttype=detail&pname=Lolo%2520National%2520Fore

st-%2520News%2520&%2520Events. (Aug. 2010). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2009c. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

U.S. Forest Service. Project proposal evaluation and 

review strategy. http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/

requests/DDBR404_3_ARRA_Project_Proposal_&_

Review_Strategy.pdf. (February 3, 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2010. Forest Service evaluation and review process 

for ARRA projects selection [Online document]. http://

www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprdb5177438.pdf. (February 3, 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

[USDA FS]. 2011a. Economic recovery Web site, key 

accomplishments. http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/recovery/

accomplishments. (January 31, 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2011b. Weekly Recovery Act status reports. 

Unpublished reports. On file with: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, 

Managing for Results, Performance, and Accountability 

System.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2011. USDA.

Gov/Recovery. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/

arra?navid=USDA_RECOVERY. (January 31, 2011).

Vilsack, T. 2009. Remarks as prepared for delivery, Seattle, 

Washington, August 14, 2009. http://www.fs.fed.us/

video/tidwell/vilsack.pdf. (January 31, 2011).

Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: design and methods. 

3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 181 p. 
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Appendix

This study was conducted using a case-study approach, a 

common research method applied when social scientists 

want to study the who, what, how, and why of contemporary 

events within a real-life context (Yin 2003). In this instance, 

the research team was interested in how USDA Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (hereafter 

referred to as Recovery Act) projects were developed and 

carried out, why they were chosen, who was involved, how 

they affected the agency, what the environmental impacts 

were on lands where they were implemented, and what the 

economic and social effects were for project recipients, 

employees, and rural communities. The research team was 

asked by Forest Service Washington office Recovery Act 

staff to conduct case studies in a number of states that had 

received a substantial amount of Forest Service Recovery 

Act funding (which totaled $1.15 billion). Eight states were 

selected: Alabama, Arizona, California, Idaho, Michigan, 

Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon.

Case studies were chosen based on several criteria. 

The studies were located in states with high levels of Forest 

Service recovery spending, focused on rural areas that had 

a relatively high county economic distress ranking, and 

were selected to provide broad geographic representation. 

The cases also included diverse project types. Finally, these 

projects were ones that would produce significant on-theground outcomes by summer 2010. We identified sites that 

met as many of these criteria as possible by talking to the 

Recovery Act point of contact(s) in each Forest Service 

regional office. We then talked to the point of contact for 

each recommended case study to get a sense of the status 

of project implementation; anticipated environmental, 

economic, and social outcomes; and the local Forest 

Service unit’s interest in being involved in an assessment of 

socioeconomic impacts. The research team met to discuss 

the recommended projects for each state. In consultation 

with Washington office Recovery Act staff, we chose case 

studies that best met our criteria, that represented a range 

of project types (e.g., fuel reduction, invasive species 

management, road or trail construction, biomass utilization 

and facility improvements), and that involved different 

branches of the Forest Service (National Forest System, 

State and Private Forestry, and Research and Development). 

Qualitative data about the projects and their effects 

were gathered using semistructured, face-to-face interviews. We used purposive sampling to select interviewees 

(Lindlof and Taylor 2002). This method is appropriate 

when scientists need to identify key informants who have 

specialized knowledge about the event being studied. 

Working with the local point of contact, we identified 

Forest Service employees who had knowledge of how the 

project was developed and carried out, partners who had 

received Recovery Act funds and participated in project 

implementation, and individuals who benefited from 

jobs created or retained as a result of the project. In total, 

187 individuals were interviewed. Most interviews were 

recorded and transcribed for analysis purposes. Additional 

qualitative data were collected from secondary sources 

such as local newspapers, existing socioeconomic studies, 

and Forest Service documents. 

Quantitative data about social and economic conditions in the case-study locations were obtained from the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Division and Small Area 

Income and Poverty Estimates Program, the American 

Community Survey, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 

National Center for Education Statistics, the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, and the Department of Agriculture’s 

Economic Research Service to help understand the state 

and local socioeconomic context. Table 4 describes these 

sources, and the data that came from them, in more detail.

Quantitative data about Recovery Act projects highlighted in the case studies were obtained from corporate 

databases, including USAspending and Recovery.gov. 

Table 5 describes these sources in more detail. Figures 

for number of jobs reported came from quarterly reports 

submitted to Recovery.gov by award recipients. 

Recovery Act investment by state was calculated 

by using information provided by the Forest Service 
43

Socioeconomic Assessment of Forest Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Projects: Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Table 4—Sources of socioeconomic data used in case study

Source Data Web address

Population Division, Population estimates including total population, http://www.census.gov/popest/ 

U.S. Census Bureau population by age group, population by counties/asrh 

 race, and origin; 1990 and 2000–2009

Local Area Unemployment Monthly unemployment, 1990–2010 http://www.bls.gov/lau 

Statistics Program, Bureau

of Labor Statistics

Small Area Income and Percentage of resident population living in http://www.census.gov/did/www/ 

Poverty Estimates Program, poverty, and median household income, saipe/index.html 

U.S. Census Bureau 1989–2008

National Center for Education School enrollment, K-12, and students eligible http://nces.ed.gov/ccd 

Statistics, U.S. Department for free or reduced-price lunch, 1986–2008 

of Education

USDA Economic Research Percentage of resident population who have http://www.ers.usda.gov/ 

Service completed high school and college, 1970, Data/Education, and 

 1980, 1990, 2000. Rural Urban Continuum http://www.ers.usda.gov/ 

Codes, 1974, 1983, 1993, 2003. Briefing/Rurality

 

Regional Economic Information Employment by industry, 1990–2000, 2001–2007 http://www.bea.gov/ 

System, Bureau of Economic

Analysis

American Community Survey, Housing statistics http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ 

U.S. Census Bureau

Table 5—Sources of government spending data used in case study

Source Description Web address

USAspending.gov, maintained Database of all federal awards. Data include http://www.usaspending.gov 

by the U.S. Office of award identification numbers, project

Management and Budget descriptions, funding, recipient information, 

 and more.

Recovery.gov (official Web site Database of American Recovery and http://www.recovery.gov

of Recovery Act spending) Reinvestment Act spending, including 

quarterly reports filed by award 

 recipients detailing job creation.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-832

Washington office, current through September 8, 2009. 

In states that received funding for multistate projects, the 

total investment figure is further broken down to indicate 

funding for both state-specific projects and the state’s share 

of multistate projects. In calculating a state’s share of a 

multistate project, it was assumed that every state involved 

in a multistate project received an equal portion of the funding. Therefore, investment figures for states that received 

multistate project funding are given as approximations 

rather than hard figures. Approximations are indicated 

with the use of a tilde (~).

The Recovery Act requires recipients to report number 

of jobs in the form of fractional full-time equivalent (FTE) 

jobs. Only jobs that are funded directly by Recovery Act 

dollars are considered, and there is no differentiation made 

between existing jobs or newly created jobs. At the end of 

each quarter, the recipient takes the total number of hours 

worked and funded by the Recovery Act, and divides it by 

the number of quarterly hours that constitute a full-time 

schedule to calculate the number of FTE jobs. The number 

of quarterly hours constituting a full-time schedule may 

differ depending on job standards, but is typically 520. 

(This assumes that a typical full-time position is 40 hours 

per week. A quarter is 13 weeks; 40 × 13 = 520.) Therefore, 

if a recipient records that in one quarter, three employees 

worked a total of 1,300 hours that were paid for by the 

Recovery Act, they will divide those 1,300 hours by 520 

and report 2.5 FTE jobs. 

Prior to publication, drafts of the case-study documents 

were reviewed by at least three individuals who participated 

in their development, including Forest Service employees 

and project recipients.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution 

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300