Skip to content
Pacific Forest & Watershed Lands Stewardship Council at a glance

· Private foundation

Pacific Forest & Watershed Lands Stewardship Council

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$948k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$948k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Housing & Shelter$12MEnvironment$11MPhilanthropy$3.0MCommunity Improvement$2.7MPublic Benefit$1.7MCivil Rights$61kScience & Tech$50kCrime & Legal$4kOther$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$947,872
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$947,872
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 24% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%WILDLIFE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: $112k → 6%MOTHER LODE LAND TRUST: $323k → 10%SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION: $2.4M → 12%PLUMAS COUNTY: $510k → 13%MADERA COUNTY: $105k → 15%LAKE COUNTY: $825k → 17%FALL RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $550k → 17%MENDOCINO LAND TRUST: $232k → 18%SEQUOIA RIVERLANDS TRUST: $80k → 18%NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $543k → 18%Sierra Foothill Conservancy: $101k → 19%Ducks Unlimited: $185k → 17%Mother Lode Land Trust: $180k → 10%FEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST: $340k → 13%COUNTY OF MADERA: $79k → 15%Fall River Resource Conservation District: $375k → 17%DUCKS UNLIMITED: $137k → 17%PLACER TITLE COMPANY - ROSEVILLE: $3.5M → 6%AMADOR COUNTY: $88k → 10%Feather River Land Trust: $308k → 13%FALL RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $175k → 17%FEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST: $299k → 13%SHASTA COUNTY: $1.0M → 14%FALL RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $157k → 17%PLACER TITLE COMPANY: $2.5M → 6%PLUMAS COUNTY: $269k → 13%SHASTA COUNTY: $352k → 14%PLUMAS COUNTY: $99k → 13%SHASTA LAND TRUST: $97k → 14%PLACER TITLE COMPANY: $2.5M → 6%POTTER VALLEY TRIBE: $500k → 18%PLACER TITLE COMPANY - ROSEVILLE: $770k → 6%SHASTA LAND TRUST: $240k → 14%PLACER TITLE COMPANY - AUBURN: $2.0M → 6%SIERRA NEVADA CONSERVANCY: $1.6M → 6%SHASTA LAND TRUST: $74k → 14%SIERRA NEVADA CONSERVANCY: $1.4M → 6%SIERRA NEVADA CONSERVANCY: $948k → 6%SHASTA LAND TRUST: $72k → 14%PLACER TITLE COMPANY - AUBURN: $728k → 6%PLACER COUNTY ASSESSOR: $612k → 6%SIERRA NEVADA CONSERVANCY: $459k → 6%PLACER LAND TRUST: $181k → 6%FALL RIVER VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT: $147k → 14%FALL RIVER VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT: $90k → 14%NEVADA COUNTY: $138k → 11%Western Shasta Resource Conservation District: $99k → 14%SPRING RIVERS FOUNDATION: $85k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$22M · 30 repeat orgs$8.8M to everyone else

30 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 29 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
11

Total granted

$22M
$8.8M

Still filing today

57%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • FR
    FEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST
    6× · 2018–2023 · $1.2M · revenue +60%
  • SL
    SHASTA LAND TRUST
    6× · 2018–2023 · $850k · revenue +899% · 27% of their budget
  • NC
    NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL LAND TRUST
    6× · 2018–2023 · $625k · revenue +16% · 80% of their budget

Funded once

  • PT
    PLACER TITLE COMPANY
    one grant, 2020 · $5.0M
  • SJ
    SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
    one grant, 2021 · $2.4M
  • PC
    PLACER COUNTY ASSESSOR
    one grant, 2022 · $612k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Siskiyou Land Conservancy

The Siskiyou Land Conservancy is a state and federally approved non-profit organization that assists landowners who want to protect the natural values of their land, either through purchase or establishment of conservation easements.

Environment
2
Sutter Buttes Regional Land Trust

The Sutter Buttes Regional Land Trust works to protect and conserve agricultural lands, open space, and wildlife habitat in Yuba, Sutter, and Colusa counties for the benefit of current and future generations

—
3
Tuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance

At Yosemite Rivers Alliance, we unite conservation and community to protect and restore the three rivers that ?ow through the Yosemite Regionthe Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced.

—
4
Palouse Land Trust Inc

Our mission is to work with landowners and communities to conserve the lands we love, now and forever, and to enrich connections to the natural world.

Environment
5
Santa Clara River Conservancy

The Santa Clara River Conservancy represents the diverse interests of the Santa Clara River, from the flood plain to the highest tributaries, and seeks to secure, sustain, and manage significant lands and waters that provide habitat for…

Environment
6
Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center Inc

CSERC protects water, wildlife, and wild places of the Northern Yosemite region.

Unclassified
7
The Land Trust for Santa Barbara County

To conserve natural resources, agricultural land and open spaces for present and future generations.

Environment
8
Golden State Land Conservancy Inc

Promote conservation easements and resource management plans that conserve agriculture lands, forestlands, wildlife habitat, open space, and other natural resources, in perpetuity.

Environment
9
Central Coast Land Conservancy Inc

The Central Coast Land Conservancy mission is to protect, in perpetuity, the wild spaces and natural heritage of Oregon's Central Coast

Environment
10
John Muir Land Trust prev Muir Heritage Land Trust

The vitality of open spaces is essential to the health of our earth, air, water, native plants, and animals. Our goal is to ensure that the beauty, diversity, and fullness of our wild lands continue to enrich and sustain all generations of…

Environment
11
Whatcom Land Trust

The mission of the Whatcom Land Trust is to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, scenic, agricultural and open space lands in Whatcom County for future generations by securing interests in land and promoting land stewardship.

Environment
12
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County

Land trust of santa cruz county (the organization) was incorporated in california as a not-for-profit corporation in 1978. the mission of the organization is to protect, care for, and connect all people to the vibrant natural and working…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northern California Regional Land Trust; the most unlike its peers is Friends of the Western Shasta Resource Conservation District. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 41 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
15/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PLACER TITLE COMPANY: $5,011,034 · OtherPLACER TITLE COMPANYIndividual grant recipient: $4,490,683 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPLACER TITLE COMPANY - ROSEVILLE: $4,279,476 · OtherPLACER TITLE COMPANY - ROSEVILLEPLACER TITLE COMPANY - AUBURN: $2,776,823 · OtherPLACER TITLE COMPANY - AUBURNSAN JOAQUIN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION: $2,410,050 · OtherSAN JOAQUIN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATIONIndividual grant recipient: $1,431,095 · OtherIndividual grant recipientFALL RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $1,268,833 · OtherLAKE COUNTY: $884,180 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $877,655 · Other+15 more: $2,162,262 · Other+15 moreFEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST: $1,241,254 · EnvironmentFEATHER RIVER LAND T…SHASTA LAND TRUST: $850,126 · EnvironmentSHASTA LAND TRUSTNORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $624,953 · EnvironmentNORTHERN CALIFORNIA …Mother Lode Land Trust: $604,597 · EnvironmentMother Lode Land Tru…Ducks Unlimited Inc: $334,024 · EnvironmentDucks Unlimited IncPLACER LAND TRUST: $332,678 · EnvironmentPLACER LAND TRUSTSierra Foothill Conservancy: $297,458 · EnvironmentMendocino Land Trust: $279,962 · EnvironmentSPRING RIVERS FOUNDATION: $214,620 · Environment+8 more: $871,123 · Environment+8 more
Other$25,592,091Environment$5,650,795

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST: $1,241,254 over 6y, 16% of budgetSHASTA LAND TRUST: $850,126 over 6y, 27% of budgetNORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $624,953 over 6y, 80% of budgetMother Lode Land Trust: $604,597 over 3y, 81% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc: $334,024 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetPLACER LAND TRUST: $332,678 over 6y, 2.6% of budgetSierra Foothill Conservancy: $297,458 over 2y, 6.5% of budgetMendocino Land Trust: $279,962 over 5y, 22% of budgetSPRING RIVERS FOUNDATION: $214,620 over 4y, 84% of budgetMAIDU SUMMIT CONSORTIUM: $176,307 over 3y, 30% of budgetBear Yuba Land Trust: $175,994 over 6y, 13% of budgetWILDLIFE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: $150,685 over 5y, 2.2% of budgetSequoia Riverlands Trust: $111,238 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE WESTERN SHASTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $82,467 over 4y, 20% of budgetCalifornia Council of Land Trusts: $70,000 over 2y, 9.5% of budgetSIERRA BUTTES TRAIL STEWARDSHIP: $19,759 over 2y, 0.8% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds FEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds SHASTA LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds Mother Lode Land Trust ↗
  • Who funds Ducks Unlimited Inc ↗
  • Who funds PLACER LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds Sierra Foothill Conservancy ↗
  • Who funds Mendocino Land Trust ↗
  • Who funds SPRING RIVERS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MAIDU SUMMIT CONSORTIUM ↗
  • Who funds Bear Yuba Land Trust ↗
  • Who funds WILDLIFE HERITAGE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Sequoia Riverlands Trust ↗
  • Who funds MOUNTAIN MEADOWS CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE WESTERN SHASTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ↗
  • Who funds California Council of Land Trusts ↗
  • Who funds SIERRA BUTTES TRAIL STEWARDSHIP ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Land Trust Alliance I…California Council of…Resources Legacy FundThe Trust for Public …Silicon Valley Commun…Morgan Stanley Global…Network for GoodVanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Land Trust Alliance IncDC24× affinity9 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Land Trust Alliance Inc · California Council of Land Trusts · Resources Legacy Fund · The Trust for Public Land · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Network for Good · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Pacific Forest & Watershed Lands Stewardship Council funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pacific Forest & Watershed Lands Stewardship Council. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 41 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Pacific Forest & Watershed Lands Stewardship Council’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home