Ecosystem Services as 

a Framework for Forest 

Stewardship: Deschutes 

National Forest Overview

Nikola Smith, Robert Deal, Jeff Kline, Dale Blahna, Trista 

Patterson, Thomas A. Spies, and Karen Bennett

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-852

August 2011

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE
Authors

Nikola Smith is an associate ecologist, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97204; Robert 

Deal is a research forester, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205; Jeff Kline and 

Thomas A. Spies are research foresters, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Dale 

Blahna is a research social scientist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific 

Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103; 

Trista Patterson is a research economist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

240 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835, Karen Bennett is the regional soil scientist, 

Pacific Northwest Region, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97204. 

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, 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.

Cover photos: (1) Stream, by Tom Iraci, (2) Fly fishing, 

USDA Forest Service; (3 through 7) Elk, mushrooms, 

Deschutes River rafters, northern spotted owl, and 

ponderosa pines, by Tom Iraci; (8) Honey bee, by 

David Cappaert, Michigan State University, Bugwood.

org; (9) Todd Lake and Mount Bachelor, Deschutes 

National Forest, by Tom Iraci.

9

1

2

3

8

7

4 5 6
Abstract

Smith, Nikola; Deal, Robert; Kline, Jeff; Blahna, Dale; Patterson, Trista; 

Spies, Thomas A.; Bennett, Karen. 2011. Ecosystem services as a framework 

for forest stewardship: Deschutes National Forest overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

The concept of ecosystem services has emerged as a way of framing and describing 

the comprehensive set of benefits that people receive from nature. These include 

commonly recognized goods like timber and fresh water, as well as processes like 

climate regulation and water purification, and aesthetic, spiritual, and cultural 

benefits. The USDA Forest Service has been exploring use of the framework of 

ecosystem services as a way to describe goods and services provided by federal 

lands and attract and build partnerships with stakeholders and nongovernmental 

organizations. More recently, the agency has sought place-based example applications of the ecosystem service framework to explore its possible use as a tool to 

guide forest management, and better illustrate the concept for policymakers, managers, and potential national forest partners. Meeting this call, the Forest Service’s 

Deschutes National Forest and Pacific Northwest Research Station are collaborating 

to explore how an ecosystem service approach can enhance forest stewardship in 

central Oregon. This effort includes (1) describing the ecosystem services provided 

by the forest, (2) investigating how an ecosystem service framework can support an 

integrated management approach across program areas to sustain ecological functions and processes, including examination of the potential outcomes and tradeoffs 

among services associated with proposed management activities, (3) assessing the 

relationship between supply and demand for services and strategies to sustainably 

manage service flows while conserving resources over time, and (4) attracting and 

building partnerships with stakeholders who value the services the forest provides. 

In this report, we (1) characterize the concept of ecosystem services as it could 

apply to national forests; (2) describe the value of an ecosystem service approach 

and provide examples of how management actions support the provision of these 

services; (3) compare the Deschutes National Forest’s current accomplishment 

reporting system to ecosystem service outcomes that potentially result from management activities; (4) identify partners with potential to collaboratively plan, fund, 

or implement projects to enhance or conserve ecosystem services; (5) describe current research efforts to support management application of the ecosystem service 

concept; and (6) identify research needs.

Keywords: Deschutes National Forest, management applications, public 

benefits, nonmarket valuation, tradeoffs, stakeholder partnerships. 

1

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Introduction

“A healthy and prosperous America relies on the health of our natural 

resources, and particularly our forests.”

—U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

The work of the USDA Forest Service has come to reflect a growing public recognition and demand for natural resource stewardship and the multiple benefits that 

forests provide. Although the importance of healthy, functioning ecosystems is 

widely recognized (Carroll et al. 2008, Daily 1997a, McKenzie et al. 2004), uncertainties arising from population growth, loss of forest land to development, and 

impacts of climate change have brought renewed attention to the role that forests 

play in enhancing public welfare (Collins and Larry 2008). Concerns about rising 

global temperatures, drought, more extreme fire and flood events, habitat degradation, regulation of greenhouse gases, and the sustainability of water supplies (IPCC 

2007) have highlighted the importance of natural resource management in securing 

desired resource conditions. The connection between forests and people is particularly acute in the face of these challenges.

The concept of ecosystem services has emerged as a way of framing and 

describing the comprehensive set of benefits that people receive from nature. 

Ecosystem services are the products of functioning ecosystems that benefit people 

(Brown et al. 2007, Costanza et al. 1997, Daily 1997a, Kline 2006). These services 

have been described in a number of ways, including the Millennium Ecosystem 

Assessment or MEA (MEA 2005) which developed a frequently referenced classification of ecosystem services into the four categories of provisioning, supporting, 

regulating, and cultural services. Provisioning services are familiar commodities 

such as food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and many pharmaceuticals for direct human 

use. Supporting services are the underlying processes that maintain the conditions 

for life on Earth, such as nutrient cycling, soil formation, and primary production. 

Regulating services are the benefits obtained from ecosystem impacts on natural 

processes, such as flood and disease control, water purification, climate stabilization, and crop pollination. Cultural services include recreational, spiritual, educational, and aesthetic benefits that enrich and revitalize the human experience.

Although the Forest Service has been exploring use of these concepts to 

describe the benefits provided by forests, the ecosystem service approach has not 

been applied operationally in a management context. Agency management accomplishments have been defined by Congress in terms of output-oriented program 

targets, such as board feet of timber sold or acres treated to reduce fuels. These 

measures describe management actions undertaken but do not account for the full 

suite of benefits provided by public lands. The promise of an ecosystem service 

The concept of 

ecosystem services 

has emerged as 

a way of framing 

and describing the 

comprehensive set of 

benefits that people 

receive from nature.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

approach is to try to bring a more complete accounting of forest benefits to national 

forest management—one that highlights ecological functions and processes at site 

and landscape scales, and that provides a more comprehensive rationale for specific 

management actions. 

To make ecosystem services relevant to land managers there is a need for 

place-based application. The Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station 

and Deschutes National Forest (NF) have partnered to explore how this approach 

can be implemented by a national forest to enhance forest stewardship. This 

includes describing the services provided by the forest, examining potential 

outcomes and tradeoffs among services associated with management actions, and 

exploring the potential of an ecosystem service framework to support collaborative 

decisionmaking with the public and strengthen partnerships with stakeholders. 

Broadly speaking, this effort is a three-stage process that includes:

(1) An overview of ecosystem services in national forest terms and investigation of how the concept could apply to Forest Service management, using 

the Deschutes NF as an example. 

(2) Initial research to:

a. Design a place-based classification of ecosystem services specific 

to the Deschutes NF, incorporating the values and perceptions of 

stakeholders and Forest Service staff.

b. Develop an outcome-based ecosystem service framework for 

landscape analysis and decision support.

(3) Future research to further develop an ecosystem service approach to 

management by:

a. Addressing the relationship between supply and demand for services 

the forest provides and exploring how to sustainably manage service 

flows while conserving resources.

b. Collaboratively developing ecosystem service metrics.

c. Applying ecosystem service concepts to a demonstration project.

The intent of this report is to provide a foundation for the above process, with 

an emphasis on the first stage. Its objectives are to (1) characterize the concept 

of ecosystem services as it could apply to national forests and the mission of the 

Forest Service; (2) use the Deschutes NF as a case study to describe the value of an 

ecosystem service approach and provide examples of how management actions and 

performance measures could be characterized in terms of ecosystem services; (3) 

identify partners with potential to collaboratively plan, fund, or implement projects 

to enhance and conserve ecosystem services; (4) describe current ecosystem service 

research; and (5) identify future research needs.
3

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Ecosystem Services and the Forest Service Mission

The ecosystem service approach is not completely new for the Forest Service, and 

builds on decades of research by resource economists such as Michael Bowes and 

John Krutilla, who described and evaluated public benefits arising from multipleuse management of federal forests (Bowes and Krutilla 1989). Moreover, the agency 

mission itself has always been one of natural resource stewardship and multiple 

resource values. The Forest Service was established to protect and manage natural 

resources—specifically water and timber—because of their importance to national 

security and for the significant public benefits they provide. The federal government, acting on behalf of the American people, recognized that unless forested 

lands were set aside, critical water and timber assets might not be adequately 

protected for future generations. After World War II, the Forest Service emerged as 

a primary supplier of natural resource commodities, including timber and rangeland 

for grazing livestock (USDA FS 2005). Socioeconomic changes, coupled with 

new legislation passed during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, broadened the range of 

agency activities and objectives to consider other benefits in addition to water and 

timber, including wildlife, recreation, and ecological health, among others (Apple 

2000). Still more recently, the agency mission has expanded further to include 

ensuring the healthy functioning of forest ecosystems that are seen as critical to 

maintaining public welfare over time. Within its stated current mission—sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands for 

present and future generations—the Forest Service strategic plan identifies several 

specific goals, including providing and sustaining benefits to the American people, 

conserving open space, sustaining and enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities, 

and providing science-based applications and tools for sustainable natural resource 

management (USDA FS 2007b). 

Although the Forest Service mission has evolved over time to serve the public 

good more broadly, the agency’s current management context does not adequately 

highlight the full scope of benefits that forests provide. Current reporting mechanisms and processes do not illustrate the value of much of what managers accomplish, particularly with regard to the regulating, cultural, and supporting services 

provided by forests that are critical to human well-being. The emerging concept 

of ecosystem services can enhance implementation of the Forest Service mission 

in a management setting, illustrate the value of forest management, and provide 

resource specialists with new ways to approach decisonmaking. 
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Ecosystem Services as an Emerging Opportunity 

for the Forest Service: Incorporating an Ecosystem 

Service Context into National Forest Management

“Our markets—and our regulations, for that matter—need to be designed 

not with outputs, but with long-term outcomes in mind: to ensure a sustainable flow of all the ecosystem services that Americans want and need from 

their forests.”

—Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell

The Forest Service is regarded as a “can do” organization. It prides itself on its 

ability to produce—to supply timber, build roads, fight fire, and offer areas for 

hunting, grazing, and gathering of mushrooms and horticultural products. Historically, the provisioning services the agency produces have received more attention 

than other ecoysystem services (Collins 2007; Collins and Larry 2008; Patterson 

and Coelho 2008, 2009). Protection of soils, water, wildlife, and recreation opportunities, among others, have emerged over time as important non-commodity-related 

goals of forest management. For Washington, Oregon, and northern California, 

the signing of the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994 helped address this issue by 

prioritizing multiple management objectives within the range of northern spotted 

owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). The plan was based on a key principle of managing for the long-term sustainability of habitat as well as for forest products (USDA 

FS and USDI BLM 1994). Although the Northwest Forest Plan was an important 

step toward an ecosystem management approach that combined human needs and 

multiple uses with sustaining a functional old-growth and late-successional forest 

system, there is still a need to extend the classification of these uses to address 

regulating, cultural, and supporting services (Collins and Larry 2008) and to 

incorporate related considerations into the goals of resource professionals across 

program areas.

The reward system for national forest staff has been based upon accomplishment of targets assigned by Congress. The performance evaluations of forest 

supervisors, district rangers, and the staffs they supervise are based on annual 

outputs such as the amount of timber sold, the amount of firewood offered, the 

number of animal unit months provided to grazing permittees, and the miles of 

road constructed or decommissioned, among others. This method of characterizing 

and rewarding success can have unintended consequences. For example, it can 

lead to decisions that are fragmented by resource specialty, prompting the agency 

to focus its efforts on accomplishment of narrowly defined targets rather than 

approaching management of ecological processes and functions through integrated 

resource programs.
5

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

There is an alternative. Viewing the benefits from national forest lands in 

terms of ecosystem services, or “benefits from nature,” provides a subtle shift in 

viewpoint that can have profound effects (Collins 2007). As articulated by former 

Forest Service Associate Chief Sally Collins and Ecosystem Services Specialist 

Elizabeth Larry, “an ecosystem services perspective moves land managers to frame 

a purpose that reflects a broader set of values” (Collins and Larry 2008). Framing 

Forest Service actions in terms of ecosystem services allows staff to conceptualize 

all the benefits from ecosystems (Collins 2007, Collins and Larry, 2008). Setting an 

expectation that all employees view their accomplishments in terms of outcomes, 

highlighting the entire suite of ecosystem services provided (including an evaluation of tradeoffs), broadens their approach to their job responsibilities and necessarily requires integration of efforts across disciplines. It is important for Forest 

Service employees to recognize that altering ecosystems may change the services 

they deliver. Daily choices made in Forest Service operations also influence the 

ecosystem services needed to support agency activities (water, fuel, etc.). Although 

these changes in expectations may be subtle, they could inspire a new approach 

to management by leading to differences in project implementation and garnering 

support from local communities. This shift in approach can be supported by the 

development of tools, methodologies, and reward systems that allow managers to 

work collaboratively across programs and consider management objectives in terms 

of interdisciplinary outcomes. 

In addition to supporting a more integrated approach to decisionmaking, the 

language of ecosystem services can help managers highlight connections between 

forests and people and strengthen relationships with the public (Collins and Larry 

2008). Much of the Forest Service’s vocabulary for speaking about the management 

of forests came from the production forestry era (Collins 2007). This technical 

language is based on the provision of forest products but does not fully address the 

relationship between forests and public benefits. Words reflect culture, defining and 

subtly perpetuating beliefs (Collins 2007). The way managers speak about forests 

reinforces practices and a mindset that may need to evolve to reflect changing public expectations and concerns about climate change, the increasing human demand 

for resources, and greater awareness of the interconnectedness between forests and 

human well-being (Collins 2007, Collins and Larry 2008). 

National forest lands can also serve as a laboratory for testing ideas (Collins 

2007). By modeling use of the ecosystem service concept in management decisonmaking and reporting, the Forest Service can support application of related 

outcome-based approaches to natural resource management in other contexts. 

This can include piloting methodologies for use in ecosystem service markets 

The way managers 

speak about forests 

reinforces practices 

and a mindset that 

may need to evolve to 

reflect changing public 

expectations and 

concerns about climate 

change, increasing 

human demand for 

resources, and greater 

awareness of the 

interconnectedness 

between forests and 

human well-being.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

that compensate private forest landowners for public benefits provided by their 

land stewardship. National forests can demonstrate a multitude of metrics for these 

markets, including those that measure nutrients, wetland function, biodiversity, 

water quality improvements, and carbon sequestration, with minor adjustments in 

the way that the agency currently accounts for land management accomplishments. 

These demonstration efforts can highlight the value provided by both public and 

private forests, draw connections between forests and people who benefit from the 

services they provide, and underscore the importance of sustaining healthy forests 

across the landscape. 

The Value of an Ecosystem Service Approach

The ecosystem services concept, as a framework for forest management, has potential usefulness to the Forest Service in four primary ways. The first potential use is 

as a way to describe to the public and to Congress the value of national forests 

to the American people. This is particularly important as timber revenue declines 

and the funding base for programs like restoration becomes insufficient to meet 

management needs. Defining ecosystem service values addresses the agency’s need 

to better describe and market the benefits provided by national forest management 

as a rationale for continued public funding of the National Forest System. Value 

here need not be expressed exclusively in terms of monetary measures. Rather, 

as a marketing tool for Forest Service management of national forest lands, an 

ecosystem service framing of public benefits may simply involve enumerating and 

describing a broad set of services, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to improve 

public understanding of what a well-funded Forest Service provides for the tax 

dollars expended.

A second potential use of this framework is to characterize Forest Service 

management activities in terms of ecosystem service outcomes to complement 

output-related targets required by Congress. This approach can also help 

managers highlight the connection between public benefits and ecological 

conditions, establish management priorities, and evaluate tradeoffs among different 

landscape attributes, functions, or goods and services. The agency’s current 

reporting system for articulating management accomplishments emphasizes 

units of measure in output-oriented terms—related to acres, miles, or board feet 

produced—that do not adequately illustrate management objectives or outcomes 

related to ecological functions and processes, and the public benefits they provide. 

For example, management actions such as timber harvest, fuel treatments, road 

building or decommissioning, riparian enhancement activities, or trail construction 

are generally conducted to achieve particular ecological outcomes (e.g., fire risk 
7

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

reduction, maintenance of threatened or endangered species, or forest productivity) 

that are not clearly communicated or known when reported only in terms of an 

acre treated or mile restored, which describe activities in spatial units rather than 

the services or benefits that result. As forest managers contend with increasingly 

complex objectives and limited budgets, new tools are needed to help them set 

priorities and describe and evaluate the outcomes that result from their management actions. 

In addition to articulating outcomes, an ecosystem service approach can help 

agency staff identify and communicate why and where particular management 

actions are needed. An ecosystem service framework can clarify relationships 

between the quantity or quality of services provided by forests and the condition of 

ecosystems supplying them (Daily 1997b). This approach can bring attention to the 

functions performed by healthy ecosystems, distinguish between those that are low 

and high functioning, lead to investigations about causes of ecosystem degradation 

or impeded function, and identify where restoration or other actions are needed. 

Managing to sustain functions and processes also encourages a landscape-scale 

perspective, and serves dual objectives of enhancing land stewardship while providing public benefits. This framework can help highlight functions and processes 

within a decisionmaking framework, clarify priorities and management needs, and 

support the design and implementation of projects with clearly articulated goals 

and results. This approach can also assist managers with analysis of the impacts 

of projects across resource areas, and consideration of potential tradeoffs among 

ecosystem services provided, rather than focusing on just one objective or working 

in independent and isolated programs. 

A third potential use of the ecosystem service framework is to assess whether 

particular ecosystem service flows are in decline over time, and if they are, 

assemble the widest possible range of management alternatives and policies to 

stem those losses. This range may include management and stewardship efforts 

that restore and sustain ecosystem service flows. It may also include planning and 

education to address overconsumption, crowding, or other negative impacts when 

demand for ecosystem services becomes concentrated or is projected to increase 

owing to population growth or other factors.

Lastly, an ecosystem service framework, if developed collaboratively, can 

strengthen relationships with communities, tribes, private stakeholders, 

and nongovernmental organizations by defining common natural resource 

stewardship objectives. Inherent in an ecosystem service approach is identifying 

services provided by a landscape, and understanding human use and dependency 

on those services (Collins and Larry 2008). By providing a clear framework for 

As forest managers 

contend with 

increasingly complex 

objectives and limited 

budgets, new tools 

are needed to help 

them set priorities 

and describe and 

evaluate the outcomes 

that result from their 

management actions. 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

describing these relationships, the ecosystem service concept potentially can 

promote collaboration and dialogue among interest groups that share stewardship 

goals. This includes working together to plan, fund, or implement work needed 

on national forest lands with partners who have a common stake in particular 

ecosystem services, such as providing water to a municipality, fishing and hunting 

opportunities to recreation groups, and others. Presenting objectives in terms of 

ecosystem service outcomes, and evaluating tradeoffs that might occur as a result 

of particular management activities, could also clarify decisionmaking processes 

for the public and build trust in the agency’s actions. 

This report establishes a foundation for development of the potential uses of 

the ecosystem service framework described above. Using the Deschutes NF as a 

case study, the following sections will (1) characterize the Deschutes NF management context, (2) describe the ecosystem services provided by forests, (3) provide 

examples of how management activities and performance measures could be 

characterized in terms of ecosystem services, (4) identify current and prospective 

partners with potential to collaboratively plan, fund, or implement projects based 

on shared interests in ecosystem services, and (5) describe ongoing research and 

future research needs. These research efforts will address knowledge gaps to more 

fully account for ecosystem services provided by forests, explore how to approach 

management decisionmaking in terms of ecosystem service outcomes, and investigate the potential of an ecosystem service framework to support collaborative 

decisionmaking with stakeholders. 

Place-Based Application of the 

Ecosystem Service Framework

A primary goal of this research effort is to apply the ecosystem service framework 

to management in a place-based context. The geographic, ecological, and socioeconomic characteristics of the Deschutes NF affect the benefits the forest provides, 

the services valued by surrounding communities, and the nature of related 

management challenges. It is important to consider these conditions when 

designing an ecosystem service approach to forest stewardship.

Deschutes National Forest

The Deschutes NF encompasses 1.6 million acres of forested land along the eastern 

slope of the Cascade Range in central Oregon (fig. 1). It lies mostly in Deschutes 

County but extends into Jefferson County to the north and into Klamath and Lake 

Counties to the south and east. 
9

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

OREGON

Corvallis

Medford

La Grande

Klamath

County

Lake

County

Jefferson

County

Linn

County

Klamath

County

Bend

Portland ortland

McKenzie River

Umpqua River

Rogue Rive r

Lane

County

Salem

Deschutes County

Deschutes National Forest

Other national forests

Counties

Rivers

Warm

Springs

Indian

Reservation

Crater Lake

National Park

Deschutes River

Willamette River

Eugene C A S C A D E R A N G E

Figure 1—The Deschutes National Forest encompasses 1.6 million acres of forested land along the eastern slope of the Cascade Range in 

central Oregon.

The forest is a diverse landscape of wet upper montane areas with mixedconifer forest, volcanic formations, and dry desert, and includes habitat for more 

than 350 species of fish and wildlife (USDA FS 1990). Forests are predominantly 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.) and lodgepole pine (Pinus 

contorta Dougl. ex Loud.), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carr.), 

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), white fir (Abies concolor 

(Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr.) and grand fir (Abies grandis (Douglas ex D. 

Don) Lindley). Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis Hook.) encroachment is occurring 

in some areas, principally in higher elevation big sage (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) 

communities. As a result of fire suppression, some mixed-conifer areas, particularly 

those with high densities of Douglas-fir and white fir, are at risk for stand-replacing 

fire. Other multistory ponderosa pine stands are vulnerable to stress from drought, 

The Deschutes 

National Forest is a 

diverse landscape of 

wet upper montane 

areas with mixedconifer forest, 

volcanic formations, 

and dry desert, and 

includes habitat for 

more than 350 species 

of fish and wildlife.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

disease, and bark beetle attacks.1 The forest also supports several sensitive, threatened, and endangered species such as the northern spotted owl, which prefers dense 

forest canopies and complex vegetation. Other species are valued for recreation or 

cultural significance, like mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), which require a range 

of zones from dry forests and shrub steppe in winter to moist forest types in summer. 

Managers must consider how to maintain forest health while meeting several 

multiple-use objectives, including protecting critical habitats, defending homes 

from fire in the wildland-urban interface, supporting high recreational use, and 

providing timber, range, and forest products. Managing to meet one objective 

sometimes means compromising on another, while at other times objectives are 

complementary. The wide range of climatic gradients on the forest causes assessment of this balance to vary considerably across sites. Staff must weigh tradeoffs 

when evaluating management activities under consideration in different locations. 

This requires sharing information and collaborating across staff areas to identify 

and address site-specific priorities.

Many management issues are also landscape-scale and cross ownership 

boundaries, requiring collaboration with private landowners, Native American 

tribes, and other federal and state agencies. Public interests differ among ranger 

districts and project types. For example, in some settings, protection of wildlife 

habitat is a primary concern, whereas in others, reduction of fire risk near residential areas or expansion of recreation opportunities for user groups is in demand. 

Decisionmaking therefore involves evaluation of ecological, social, and economic 

expectations from a range of stakeholders in a specific context. 

An ecosystem service approach potentially can help managers address 

these challenges by enabling a more complete accounting of the range of 

goods and services that the forest provides, including analysis of relationships 

among multiple services and identification of ways in which various stakeholders might benefit from particular management actions. Ideally, an ecosystem 

service approach would complement traditional performance measures that focus 

on discrete targets for commodities, such as timber production, as indicators of 

successful management (Maleki 2008). By incorporating ecological, social, and 

economic values, an ecosystem service framework offers a more extensive articulation and accounting of the costs and benefits of different management strategies. 

1 Hemstrom, M. 2009. Skyline/Cascades timberlands analysis—VDDT Models. 

Unpublished document. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main 

Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205. 38 p.

By incorporating 

ecological, social, and 

economic values, an 

ecosystem service 

framework offers 

a more extensive 

articulation and 

accounting of the 

costs and benefits of 

different management 

strategies.
11

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Describing the Value of the Deschutes National 

Forest in Terms of Ecosystem Services

“Water, wildlife, carbon storage, opportunities for outdoor recreation and 

aesthetic enjoyment—all these values and more have elevated the importance of America’s forests in the last 20 to 30 years. What we are doing is 

more valuable to the American people than ever.”

—Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell 

The Ecosystem Service Concept 

Ecosystem services have been classified in a number of ways, depending on the 

intended use of the classifications (Patterson and Coelho 2009). However, one 

typology of services—the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005)—

has received the most attention. In 2000, the United Nations called for a study 

to evaluate the status of the world’s ecosystems and the services they provide. 

Research was conducted from 2001 to 2005 to assess the extent of ecosystem 

change caused by people and related consequences for human well-being. The 

resulting classification of ecosystem services focused on defining services by 

category and function. This provided a useful starting point for dialogue among 

policymakers, managers, stakeholders, and the public about how best to define the 

benefits that forests provide to people. Ongoing research efforts are building upon 

this foundation by developing a customized typology that more fully represents 

the ecosystem services provided by the Deschutes NF specifically (see “Ongoing 

Research” section). 

The MEA grouped ecosystem services into four broad categories: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural (fig. 2). These categories are described 

here, with an emphasis on the ecosystem services that forests provide, including 

examples from the Deschutes NF. 

Provisioning services—

Provisioning services are the products or commodities obtained from forest ecosystems including timber, food, and fresh water. Wood forest products consist 

of building and chipable materials as well as fuel wood. Several projects on the 

Deschutes NF, including logging and fuel treatments, generate small-diameter 

material that can be used for traditional timber products such as dimension lumber, 

chips, and firewood, as well as other new product markets such as shavings, pellets, 

hogg fuel, biofuels, and mulch. In addition, forests provide important indigenous 

“first foods,” including plants, berries, roots, and mushrooms, to tribes and other 

populations. Forests also offer a variety of nontimber products such as decorative 

cones, boughs, and grasses, as well as fiber, resins, and medicinal plants. 
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Fresh water is one of the most valuable ecosystem services provided by forests 

(fig. 3). Forested land absorbs rain, recharges underground aquifers, cools and 

cleanses water, and sustains watershed stability and resilience (USDA FS 2000). 

Water provided by forests supports vegetation, supplies fresh drinking water, 

sustains agricultural production, enables power generation, and creates habitat 

for aquatic species with subsequent economic, recreational, and cultural benefits 

(Postel and Carpenter 1997). 

The total volume of surface water that drains off the Deschutes NF is approximately 714 billion gallons per year, and provides half of the city of Bend's drinking 

water supply. Several local irrigation districts also use this water source for agricultural production on private land. The Avion Water Company, one of the area's 

largest water utilities, irrigates 20,000 acres with water from Wickiup Reservoir, 

which is located on the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District. 

Ecosystem Services

Supporting services

Nutrient cycling

Soil formation

Primary production

Provisioning services

Food (crops, livestock, wild foods, etc.)

Fiber (timber, cotton/hemp/silk, wood fuel)

Genetic resources

Biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals

Fresh water

Regulating services

Air quality regulation

Climate regulation (global, regional, and local)

Water regulation

Erosion regulation

Disease regulation

Pest regulation

Pollination

Natural hazard regulation

Cultural services

Aesthetic values

Spiritual and religious values

Recreation and ecotourism

Figure 2—The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment developed a commonly referenced classification 

of ecosystem services.
13

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Figure 3—Approximately 714 billion gallons of fresh water flow from the Deschutes National Forest annually.

Tom Iraci

Streams on the Deschutes NF are predominantly spring fed, which means 

they rely on ground water as a source for surface and subsurface flow. The aquifer 

volume for the high Cascades is estimated to be about the same as the Great Salt 

Lake, or almost 8 trillion gallons. The advantage of ground water dominance in the 

Deschutes NF is that water can continue to discharge in late summer and provide 

critical habitat for such fish species as the threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), which requires cold water temperatures for reproduction. The fish stocks 

of the Pacific Northwest that depend on forest freshwater systems are central to the 

cultural values of many local communities, and contribute to the region’s economy 

(USFS 1993 as cited in Myers 1997). Water bodies such as lakes, reservoirs, and 

streams are a draw for multiple recreational uses (USDA FS 2000), which are 

discussed further in the “Recreation” sidebar on page 19. 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Regulating services—

Regulating services are the benefits obtained from an ecosystem’s impact on 

natural processes, which influence climate, water flows, and plant reproduction. 

Forests play a critical role in the water cycle by capturing, storing, and transferring 

water, and enabling its gradual discharge over time (fig. 4). Precipitation infiltrates 

forest soils, where water is stored and slowly released to plant roots, surface water 

resources, ground water, and the atmosphere through transpiration (Neary et 

al. 2009). This regulates flows, reduces flood peaks, and returns moisture to the 

atmosphere. Vegetation is key to this process. Leaves, plants, and litter protect 

soil from the potentially destructive force of raindrops, preventing runoff and soil 

erosion. This helps retain a site’s production potential, infiltration, and nutrient 

levels (Daily et al. 1997a). Wetlands are particularly important for reducing flood 

Biomass Partnership With the Confederated Tribes

of Warm Springs 

Biomass utilization is being explored across the country as a potential 

alternative to fossil fuel use, as well as a source of forest product revenue for 

communities. On its reservation in central Oregon, the Confederated Tribes 

of Warm Springs (CTWS) is developing a 20 megawatt (MW) cogeneration 

powerplant located at a CTWS sawmill. This plant will provide steam to 

Warm Springs Forest Products Industries for lumber-drying purposes and will 

provide at least 15.8 MW of electrical generating capacity. This could increase 

electricity generated from biomass in Oregon by nearly 11 percent (Nielsen 

et al. 2006). The plant is currently seeking investment funds, and relationships with public land management agencies are helping to attract financial 

support. The Deschutes, Ochoco, and Mount Hood National Forests, as well 

as the Bureau of Land Management's Prineville District, have entered into a 

memorandum of understanding with the CTWS to provide a reliable supply 

of material to the plant. The agencies have committed to offering 80,000 bone 

dry tons of biomass annually to markets near the reservation. 

In addition to providing biomass for the cogeneration plant, thinning 

operations on public lands can create important co-benefits, like improvements in forest health, resilience to climate change, habitat restoration, and 

recovery of native plant and animal distributions. Thinning can also support 

production of important “first foods” valued by tribes and diverse constituencies. As discussed below, management activities aimed at one ecosystem 

service objective have the potential to create other beneficial outcomes. 
15

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

impacts by moderating flows and allowing sediments to be deposited rather than 

be transported downstream. Wetland systems also purify water and treat wastes 

through nutrient cycling, which is discussed further in “Supporting Services.” 

Daily et al. (1997a) articulated the importance of these services by highlighting 

erosion’s costs to natural and human-made systems. They explained that “downstream costs [of erosion] may include disrupted or lower quality water supplies; 

siltation that impairs drainage and maintenance of navigable river channels, 

harbors, and irrigation systems; increased frequency and severity of floods; and 

decreased potential for hydroelectric power as reservoirs fill with silt” (Pimentel 

et al. 1995 as cited in Daily et al. 1997a). The integrity of forest soils and vegetation 

has considerable impact on hydrology, aquatic habitats, and economic uses of water 

supplies and waterways. 

Forests also influence climate by regulating air quality, temperature, and 

concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (fig. 5). Trees sequester many 

pollutants from the air, including nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and 

carbon monoxide. They provide shade and surface cooling, block winds, and 

restore moisture to the atmosphere through transpiration, which eventually 

returns to the earth as precipitation. Because plants sequester carbon in biomass 

through photosynthesis, they have the potential to mitigate climate change caused 

Figure 4—Forests and wetlands regulate water flows by capturing, storing, and transferring water 

and moderating its discharge over time. This reduces flood peaks, supports the growth of vegetation, 

and returns moisture to the atmosphere through transpiration.

Tom Iraci
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

by increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) (IPCC 2007). 

Forest type, stand age, and growth rates have a considerable impact on carbon 

sequestration in biomass over time. Comprehensive forest management policies 

that integrate climate change and ecosystem services have the potential to address 

climate concerns while protecting ecosystem functions (Deal et al. 2010). 

Pollination is another regulating service 

supported by forests through provision of 

habitat for pollinators, including bats, bees, 

beetles, birds, butterflies, and flies, which 

are required for the successful reproduction 

of many flowering and wild plants (fig. 6). 

Approximately 90 percent of plants for which 

the mode of pollination is known require an 

animal to accomplish this task, including 

about 70 percent of agricultural crop species 

(Daily et al. 1997a). Maintaining healthy 

populations of pollinators is essential to 

sustaining human food supplies as well as 

wildlife habitat and forest ecosystems. 

Figure 5—Forests regulate climate and remove pollutants from the air. Management of land cover is 

critical to stabilizing runoff, preventing erosion, and maintaining carbon stores over time. 

Figure 6—Forests provide habitat for 

pollinators, which are essential to the 

functioning of ecosystems and the 

benefits they provide. Pollinators support plant reproduction and ecosystem 

health, and sustain habitat and food 

supplies for humans and wildlife.

Tom Iraci

David Cappaert, Michigan 

State University, Bugwood, org
17

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Supporting services—

Supporting services are necessary for the maintenance and support of all other 

ecosystem services. Their impacts on people are often indirect, but they are critical 

building blocks of functioning systems. Examples include such processes as soil 

formation, nutrient cycling, and primary production. 

Soil is formed from the weathering of rocks and minerals and the accumulation of organic matter over time. This process can take hundreds to thousands of 

years, and is crucial to the functioning of ecosystems and human societies (Adams 

1981 as cited in Daily et al. 1997a). In addition to moderating the water cycle as 

discussed above, soil provides several other important services by supporting and 

sheltering seeds as they mature into adult plants, and retaining nutrients near the 

soil surface in humus and clays so they are available to plant roots (Daily et al. 

1997b). The ability of soils to supply nutrients to plants largely results from the 

presence of organisms, including bacteria, fungi and worms, which serve a variety 

of roles including nitrogen fixation and decomposition of dead organic matter and 

wastes. Organic material in the forest floor and surface mineral horizon can also 

adsorb and decompose polluting inputs, including pesticide residues (Neary et al. 

2009). Forested wetlands have particularly positive impacts on nutrient cycles by 

reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur concentrations through plant growth, soil 

adsorption, and anaerobic processes (Osmond et al. 1995, MEA 2005). Soils and 

soil organisms therefore are critical to transforming potentially harmful nutrients, 

transferring them to plant growth, and improving water quality. 

In addition to playing an important role in the nitrogen, phosphorus, and 

sulfur cycles, soils are a crucial component of the carbon cycle. Nearly all life 

forms directly or indirectly rely on this process. A critical step in the carbon cycle 

is primary production, or the creation of organic 

compounds and plant biomass from atmospheric CO2

through photosynthesis. After plants and trees die, 

their branches, leaves, and roots are decomposed by 

micro-organisms, which release some CO2 to the 

atmosphere, while retaining carbon in the forest floor 

and soil (fig. 7). In the Pacific Northwest, mineral soil 

represents 21 percent of all carbon stored in a forest 

ecosystem, with an additional 16 percent stored 

by detrital and forest floor material (Smithwick et 

al. 2002). Management of these components has a 

considerable impact on carbon stored by forests. 

Figure 7—Forests play an important role in life-supporting 

processes, including primary production and nutrient cycling. 

Duncan Berry
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Cultural services—

“Perhaps the rebuilding of the body and spirit is the greatest service derivable from our forests, for what worth are material things if we lose the 

character and quality of people that are the soul of America.” 

—Arthur Carhart, Forest Service landscape architect, 1919

Cultural services are the nonmaterial benefits people derive from forests, including 

recreation, spiritual enrichment, and aesthetic experiences (fig. 8). For many, nature 

is indispensible for the wonderment and inspiration, peace and beauty, and fulfillment and rejuvenation it provides (Kellert and Wilson 1993, as cited in Daily et al. 

1997a). In addition to valuing the existence of nature generally, people may have 

specific attachments to particular places, landscapes, or experiences. This is true of 

places that are aesthetically, culturally, or historically significant, as well as other 

places that are not seemingly significant to the observer (Farnum et al. 2005). Social 

interactions with friends and family and experiences with features of a place define 

visitors’ and residents’ sense of place, attachment to place, and the feeling that a 

community attributes to a specific landscape (Eisenhauer at al. 2000, Kruger and 

Jakes 2003). The draw of these places and experiences can influence where people 

live, work, and recreate. 

Figure 8—The recreational, spiritual, and aesthetic values of the Deschutes National Forest attract millions of 

visitors each year. 

Tom Iraci
19

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Recreation—The Deschutes National Forest (NF) is one of the Pacific Northwest’s most 

highly used national forests for recreation. Data regarding recreational use can be difficult to capture, particularly at the forest scale. However, findings from the FY08 USDA 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey and other regional assessments have 

helped illustrate the Deschutes NF’s recreational value.2

Annually, there are 1.9 million recreation visits to the Deschutes NF. Like other 

national forests, the majority (46 percent) of these visits are day trips by local visitors who 

live within 50 miles of the recreation site. About 10 percent of Deschutes NF visits are 

associated with nonlocals who are camping on the forest and another 10 percent with nonlocals who recreate on the forest and stay overnight in local hotels, resorts, or private campgrounds. The Deschutes NF offers a number of convenient opportunities to view natural 

scenery and features; each year the forest attracts more than 200,000 “side trip” visits from 

individuals who travel to the central Oregon area for business, to visit friends or relatives, 

or for other reasons unrelated to the national forest. The primary recreational uses on the 

Deschutes are hiking/walking (16 percent), downhill skiing/snowboarding (16 percent), and 

viewing natural features (15 percent). About 15 percent of visits are for fishing, hunting, or 

viewing wildlife. 

Visitors were asked about their visit-related spending, including lodging, restaurants, 

groceries, gas and oil, and admission fees. Dollars spent per trip ranged from an average of 

about $33 per party for locals on day trips to about $788 per party for nonlocals paying for 

downhill skiing and overnight lodging (White and Stynes 2010). In a typical year, recreation visitors on the Deschutes spend about $111 million in nearby communities during 

their trips. This visitor spending generates about $80 million in sales at local businesses 

after accounting for some spending that immediately leaves the region. When local business sell goods and services to recreation visitors, these businesses make purchases from 

other local companies. This “secondary” economic activity stemming from recreation 

visitor spending amounts to an additional $25 million in sales at local businesses. 

In addition to visitor use and spending, another source of economic value is spending by outfitters and guides. Outfitters who served Deschutes NF visitors in 2008 paid 

more than $113,000 in permit fees to access the Bend-Fort Rock District alone, which 

experiences the highest recreation use of any district on the forest. Gross annual income 

to permittees as a result of these activities was nearly $3.5 million. Finally, national forest 

personnel and concessionaires also spend money locally as they purchase services and 

goods to provide recreation opportunities.

2 Visitor use and spending data were provided by Eric White, Oregon State University. 
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Aesthetics, sense of place, and cultural heritage values—The aesthetic characteristics of the Deschutes NF are among its most valued ecosystem services. 

The NVUM survey collects data about the quality of a visitor’s experience by 

elements of importance. In the forest’s FY02 survey, scenery ranked first or 

second for element importance and first for satisfaction at developed day use 

areas, overnight sites, and general forest areas (Kocis et al. 2003). 

The attachment that visitors have to specific sites or locations also contributes to the forest’s social value. These include locations that are historically and culturally significant, like food gathering sites, sacred places, and 

features associated with important events. The Deschutes NF contains over 

4,000 archeological and historic sites. A notable example is the Santiam 

Wagon Road, which was used by settlers to reach central Oregon from the 

Willamette Valley, and which has been nominated to the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

The Deschutes NF archeology staff collaborates with the Klamath Tribe, 

Burns Paiute Tribe, and Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs to protect sites 

that have cultural and spiritual value, including those that are used for harvesting of traditional foods. Many of these features, such as the Three Sisters 

mountain range and the Metolius Basin, are valuable to diverse constituencies 

and draw visitors from across the country. For some families, specific fishing 

sites, summer cabins, and lakes in the high Cascade Range have been visited 

for generations. These direct social, cultural, and historic experiences help 

people form attachments to places (Eisenhauer et al. 2000). Engaging with 

the public to inventory and monitor sociocultural meanings of places could 

enhance land managers’ connections with the public and strengthen the 

public’s connections with the land (Kruger and Jakes 2003). 

Community economic development—The Deschutes NF is a defining feature of central Oregon. Proximity to the forest has been a major factor in the 

region’s economic growth over the past few decades. Central Oregon accounts 

for only 5.6 percent of the state’s total population, but attracts 20 percent of 

newcomers. Deschutes County experienced a 283-percent increase in population from 1970 to 2000 (USDC Census Bureau 2000). Much of the draw for 

new residents has been the outdoor recreation opportunities offered by state 

and federal lands in the region, including the national forest. The region somewhat epitomizes the “New West” in Oregon in that recent declines in naturalresource-extractive industries have been countered by increased tourism, outdoor recreation, and amenity-based inmigration (Judson et al. 1999). The cities 
21

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Figure 9—The Deschutes National Forest 

provides habitat for more than 350 species 

of fish and wildlife, including the northern 

spotted owl, mule deer, Rocky Mountain 

elk, bull trout, and steelhead salmon. 

Frank Vanni U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Biodiversity—

Biodiversity is characterized by the MEA as an essential underpinning of ecosystem health and function with subsequent effects on ecosystem services provided by 

ecological systems (MEA 2005). As stated by Mace et al. (2005), “direct benefits 

such as food crops, clean water, clean air, and aesthetic pleasures all depend on 

biodiversity, as does the persistence, stability and productivity of natural systems.” 

The diversity of the plant, animal, and microbial species living within a community 

influence critical processes including plant productivity, soil fertility, water 

quality, nutrient cycling, pollution and waste reduction, biomass accumulation, resistance to disease and disturbance, and other environmental 

conditions that affect human welfare (Naeem et al. 1999, Tilman 1997). 

Biodiversity can also be valued for its intrinsic worth, or existence value, 

and may provide potential future benefits that are yet unknown or unrecognized (Tilman 1997). 

The Deschutes NF is situated across climatic and geologic gradients 

that give rise to high genetic diversity. The forest contains both cool wet 

subalpine environments and warm semiarid plateaus. Precipitation ranges 

from 145 inches per year at the summit of South Sister to 12 inches in Bend. 

This range of conditions may provide sites for rare and common species to 

persist and adapt to climate change. 

The wide variety of vegetation and habitat types on the Deschutes NF 

supports hundreds of significant fish and wildlife species. These include 

several sensitive, threatened and endangered species, such as the northern 

spotted owl, the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), Pacific fisher (Martes 

pennanti), greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), white-headed 

woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), bull trout and steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss), as well as game species including mule deer, Rocky Mountain 

elk (Cervus elaphus), western pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), cougar 

(Puma concolor), bears, and game birds (fig. 9). These species have cultural 

and recreational value, and provide provisioning services to communities. 

of Bend and Sisters, for example, are noted as desirable travel destinations in 

national media, offering some of the Nation’s best mountain biking (Laskin 

2004, Preusch 2004). Access to the forest is marketed by real estate developers as well as by destination resorts such as Black Butte Ranch and Sunriver 

Resort. Association with the Deschutes NF enhances the value of these properties and is a draw to the region as a whole.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Management Activities and Ecosystem Services

Forest Service management activities have the potential to increase, decrease or 

maintain ecosystem services provided by national forest lands. Understanding these 

relationships can help staff with planning, priority-setting, and decisionmaking, and 

could strengthen communication and collaboration with the public. Shifts in language and perspective can illustrate and identify the ecosystem service outcomes of 

agency activities and encourage collaboration across resource areas to manage these 

outcomes, with an emphasis on integrated stewardship of ecological processes and 

functions. This section provides background about projects that have been or could 

be implemented on the Deschutes NF, includes examples of metrics currently used 

to measure program accomplishments, and illustrates the potential 

of describing these activities in terms of ecosystem service outcomes.

Sample Management Activities

The following summaries are intended to provide examples of some agency 

projects, although they are not complete or fully representative of all programs. 

Sidebars provide a greater level of detail to better illustrate the relation between 

selected project types and ecosystem services. 

Water and soils—

The quantity and quality of water on the Deschutes NF is influenced by a wide 

range of project types and involves collaboration across several staff areas including 

hydrology, fisheries, engineering, and soil science. Activities include: 

• Planting of vegetation in riparian areas to avoid high water temperatures, 

sedimentation, and turbidity in rivers and streams.

• Restoration of stream channel shape and function in areas previously 

drained for agriculture.

• Monitoring of water quality and temperature.

• Restoration of slopes, meadows, and channels to improve ground water 

storage and sustain late-season flows (USDA FS 2000).

• Setting limits on soil compaction and erosion caused by logging operations 

and fuel treatments.

• Tillage treatments to restore soil porosity; promote the movement of water, 

air, and heat in the soil; and improve seedling survival in reforestation sites.3

• Design of road drainage systems and road closures to prevent runoff and 

diversion of ground water to surface flows.

3 Craigg, T. 2000. Subsoiling to restore compacted soils. Transcript from 21st annual forest 

vegetation management conference. On file with: Deschutes National Forest, 1001 SW 

Emkay Drive, Bend, OR 97702. 

Shifts in language and 

perspective can illustrate and identify the 

ecosystem service 

outcomes of agency 

activities and encourage collaboration 

across resource 

areas to manage these 

outcomes, with an 

emphasis on integrated 

stewardship of ecological processes 

and functions. 
23

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

• Collaboration with the Oregon Water 

Resources Department, Deschutes River 

Conservancy, and irrigation districts 

to manage piping volumes and sustain 

ground water recharge.

Fish and wildlife—

• Restoration of aspen, meadows, and 

marshes, and protection of rock outcrops 

to support wildlife. 

• Rebuilding connections between 

fragmented forest landscapes by closing 

roads and planting native vegetation. 

• Addition of wood to streams to provide 

spawning and rearing habitat.

• Improvements to fish passage, including 

culvert replacement.

Vegetation—

• Selected reforestation following wildfire, 

road rehabilitation, and stream restoration.

• Maintenance of seed banks to protect genetic resources. 

• Removal of invasive species.

• Harvest of timber to produce economic benefits for local communities.

• Silvicultural activities to restore forest structure and composition in areas 

subject to fire suppression and logging of old-growth pine trees.

Fisheries Program Involvement on Private Lands

Deschutes National Forest staff are involved with stream 

restoration and habitat improvements on private lands. 

These efforts include partnerships with the Upper 

Deschutes and Crooked River Watershed Councils, 

Deschutes Land Trust, and Three Sisters Irrigation 

District to restore flood plains, improve fish passage, and 

restore channels. The forest is also involved in mitigation 

of impacts from the Pelton Round Butte hydroelectric 

project located on the Deschutes River. Since 2005, $13 

million has been invested in projects on federal, tribal, 

and private lands, including stream restoration, culvert 

replacement, diversion removal, fish passage improvements, and environmental education. Approximately $14 

million in additional funds will be distributed by 2020. 

Investments have also been made to improve irrigation 

infrastructure and management, with an expected total of 

$11.5 million by 2013. 

Invasive Species Impacts on Ecosystem Services

Many invasive species have negative impacts on ecosystem services by causing declines in 

populations of native plant species that contribute to healthy ecosystems. Invasive plants can 

increase soil erosion, deplete nutrients and water, and quickly outcompete native vegetation. 

This often results in declining habitat and forage for livestock; loss of threatened, endangered and sensitive species; and reduced soil productivity (USDA FS 2009).

Invasive plants also affect the quantity and quality of recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, and water-based recreation. They can impede access, 

interfere with watercraft, lower water quality, and reduce the abundance and diversity of 

fish and wildlife (Eiswerth et al. 2005). Reduction of recreation use can have significant 

economic implications for both national forest lands and surrounding communities.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Fire and fuels—

• Thinning to reduce drought stress and vulnerability to insect attacks.

• Prescribed burning to remove surface fuels and reduce fire intensity.

• Reduction of fire risk in forests that border communities.

Recreation—

• Planning and management of trails that provide a sustainable level of 

access to forests and waterways.

• Design and development of interpretive sites to increase understanding 

of and appreciation for natural and cultural resources and management 

issues on national forest lands.

• Development of campgrounds and other facilities.

• Monitoring use of wildernesses, wild and scenic rivers, national scenic 

and historic trails, and other Congressionally designated areas.

Effectiveness of Hazardous Fuel Treatments

Active management of fuels can help prevent catastrophic loss of forest cover 

and protect the ecosystem services forests provide (Stephens et al. 2009). 

Thinning can improve forest health, increase forest resilience to disturbance, 

and enhance critical habitat (Hayes et al. 1997, Stephens et al. 2009). An additional benefit of these treatments is protection of homes that border forests. 

On average, approximately 60 percent of fuel treatments on the Deschutes 

NF occur in the wildland-urban interface. This results in protection of millions of dollars of real estate and increases the safety of communities. 

In fiscal year 2008, 25,000 acres were treated on the Deschutes NF with 

the goal of contributing to the reduction of fire risk. In 2007, three wildfires 

in the Pacific Northwest were assessed to determine whether fuel reduction treatments had an impact on fire behavior (USDA FS 2007a). The most 

notable and recent example was the GW Fire, which affected a fuel-treatment 

area located between the fire and a high-value wildland-urban interface 

area. Lightning ignited the GW Fire on August 31 in the Mount Washington Wilderness west of Sisters, Oregon. The fire burned 5,887 acres of the 

Deschutes NF. Twenty-five percent of the Forest Service lands that burned 

had received prior fuel or other vegetation treatments. In areas with favorable 

weather conditions and a mosaic of fuel treatments, fire behavior was modified, thus allowing effective suppression activities, which slowed fire spread. 

This increased the forest’s resilience to fire, retained vegetation cover, and 

protected nearby communities. 
25

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Performance Measures

The Forest Service currently reports its program accomplishments in metrics required 

by Congress (acres treated, miles of stream restored, board feet sold, etc.). However, these categories and targets do not fully capture the outcomes of management 

activities from an ecosystem service perspective. For example, projects that reduce 

fuel with the intent of decreasing fire risk and improving forest health are currently 

reported as “fuel treatments” and are described in terms of acres treated, which 

focuses on spatial units of activity rather than the outcomes that result. These projects 

could also be described in terms of improving vegetation function and increasing 

forest resilience, with subsequent ecosystem service benefits. The following tabulations provide examples of management activities by category as they are currently 

defined and reported, and compare these output-based metrics to examples of potential ecosystem service outcomes that could result from the projects or actions listed. 

These lists are not complete or fully representative, but are intended to illustrate the 

potential of ecosystem service language to enhance communication about program 

delivery. 

Recreation—

Activity Target/metric FY08 accomplishment Examples of ecosystem service outcomes

Trail construction Miles 9.0 • Recreational experiences (hiking, biking,

or reconstruction skiing, hunting, motorized vehicle use, etc.)

• Aesthetic and spiritual experiences

• Sense of place

• Cultural heritage values

• Protection of fragile ecosystems 

(wetlands, streams, alpine areas)

Visitor use Number 1.9 million (FY08 • Recreational experiences (hiking, biking,

` of visits National Visitor Use skiing, hunting, motorized vehicle use, etc.)

Monitoring survey) • Aesthetic and spiritual experiences

• Sense of place

• Cultural heritage values

• Community economic development and 

higher real estate values

Fuel treatment—

Activity Target/metric FY08 accomplishment Examples of ecosystem service outcomes

Fuel reduction Acres 25,000 • Increased forest resilience to disturbance, 

resulting in sustained vegetation cover 

and subsequent provisioning, regulating, 

supporting, and cultural services

• Enhancement of wildlife habitat

• Community safety 

• Economic benefits (property protection)
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Forest products—

Resource Target/metric FY08 accomplishment Examples of ecosystem service outcomes

Timber Million 55.34 (lumber and • Wood and nontimber forest products

board feet chipable material) • Reduced fuel loading, which increases forest

resilience to drought stress and insect

attacks, resulting in sustained vegetation

cover, thereby providing regulating,

supporting, and cultural services 

• Enhancement of wildlife habitat

• Community economic benefits 

Biomass Bone dry tons 80,000 (approx.) • Wood products

• Alternative fuel source

• Enhancement of wildlife habitat

• Economic benefits for local communities 

and industries 

Watershed restoration—

Resource/activity Target/metric FY08 accomplishment Examples of ecosystem service outcomes

Watershed Acres 44 • Fresh water 

restoration • Climate, water, and erosion regulation

• Fish and wildlife habitat

• Recreational opportunities

• Aesthetic and spiritual experiences

• Economic benefits from irrigation 

• Water quality improvements

• Enhanced nutrient cycling

Soil restoration Acres 1,966 • Improved plant growth, resulting in 

provisioning, regulating, supporting, 

and cultural services

• Regulation of waterflow

• Filtration of nutrients and pollutants 

resulting in improved water quality 

Noxious weed Acres 3,156 (manual) • Improvements in site productivity,

removal 1,361 (herbicide) supporting vegetation growth and 

subsequent provisioning, regulating, 

and supporting services

• Wildlife habitat and forage

• Recreation opportunities (hunting, hiking, 

water-based recreation)—see “Invasive 

Species” sidebar on page 23

• Aesthetic experiences

• Water quality improvements
27

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Addressing Relationships Among Ecosystem Services

in Management Decisionmaking

“Where once we tended to compartmentalize, managing for a particular 

good or service—timber here, forage there, recreation over here, urban 

forest over there—today we tend to focus more on restoring a whole range 

of goods and services across entire landscapes. We do that by restoring 

the functions and processes characteristic of healthy, resilient forest ecosystems—ecosystems capable of delivering clean air and water, wildlife 

habitat, carbon sequestration, and all the other benefits that Americans want 

and need.”

—Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell

Articulating Forest Service management objectives and accomplishments in terms 

of ecosystem services marks a shift in perspective and could provide staff with 

more opportunities to manage ecological functions and processes in addition to 

outputs. As illustrated above, ecosystem service objectives can be addressed by 

activities across program areas. Rather than meeting an individual resource target, 

program staffs could work collectively toward shared outcome-related goals that 

support healthy, resilient forests and the ecosystem services they provide. Understanding the relationship between the quality and quantity of services provided, 

and the conditions of the ecosystems that provide them (Daily 1997b), can also help 

managers set priorities, identify restoration needs, establish management goals, and 

illustrate the rationale for their decisionmaking. 

Critical to this analysis is consideration of how a particular management 

activity or series of activities could affect ecosystem function and the suite of 

services provided on a given site or across a landscape. Although ecosystem 

services can be described individually by type, the sections above illustrate 

that they are inherently interactive and interdependent as part of a 

natural system. Forest managers recognize this; several on the Deschutes NF 

have expressed a desire to work collectively to address these relationships in 

management decisionmaking. Fire risk, for example, is a primary concern for staff 

and the public, and fuel management is critical to sustaining a resilient landscape. 

Fuel treatment decisions affect nearly all other ecosystem services, including the 

forest’s water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities. Deciding 

where, when, and to what extent to treat fuel should ideally involve consideration 

of these other services. 

The complexity of management issues, and the goal of sustainably managing 

flows of ecosystem services over time, also lends itself to collaborative decisionmaking with stakeholders outside the agency. Maintaining the health of forest 

Articulating Forest 

Service management 

objectives and 

accomplishments in 

terms of ecosystem 

services marks a shift 

in perspective and 

could provide staff with 

more opportunities 

to manage ecological 

functions and 

processes in addition 

to outputs.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

ecosystems often demands a landscape-scale approach across ownerships. 

Involving other agencies, private landowners, tribes, civic leaders, business 

owners, conservationists, and others in discussions about forest management 

contributes to more informed planning that reflects ecological and public 

priorities. Working collectively in project development can also reduce conflict 

and litigation, which often delay project implementation. 

Sustaining Ecosystem Services Through Partnerships

“The key is collaboration. No one of us can do it alone—the challenges 

are just too great. Landscape-scale conservation brings people together 

to collaborate across ownerships, to address shared issues and common 

concerns, and to pursue common goals based on mutual respect.”

—Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell

The Deschutes NF has achieved some of its most impressive restoration work 

through partnerships. The Soil and Water Program alone has achieved a 5:1 ratio 

of partner to Forest Service investment in management activity. Collaboration 

with external organizations has enabled the forest to fund and implement projects that are unlikely to have happened otherwise. The language of ecosystem 

services potentially offers a means for identifying mutual interests and building 

or strengthening collaborations that enhance the goods and services provided by 

Forest Service lands. Examples of two such existing partnerships are highlighted 

below, followed by descriptions of potential partnerships that could be explored 

based on shared interests in ecosystem services. 

Examples of Existing Partnerships

National Forest Foundation: Whychus Creek restoration—

Whychus Creek once provided habitat for one of the biggest populations of 

steelhead salmon (commonly known as trout) in the Deschutes River Basin. In the 

early 1900s, its channels were straightened for agricultural purposes and nearly 90 

percent of its water was diverted for irrigation. This destroyed pools and critical 

spawning areas. To address this loss, the Forest Service is engaging in a collaborative effort supported by several stakeholders, including a $1.7 million contribution 

from the National Forest Foundation (NFF). The Deschutes River Conservancy, 

the Deschutes Land Trust, and Deschutes NF staff are working together to restore 

the original creek channel, replant native vegetation, and remove obstacles to fish 

passage. Irrigation districts are involved to maintain flow in the creek to recover 

habitat and watershed health. In addition to improving conditions for steelhead, 

this restoration effort will result in such important co-benefits as a higher water 

The language of 

ecosystem services 

potentially offers a 

means for identifying 

mutual interests 

and building or 

strengthening 

collaborations that 

enhance the goods and 

services provided by 

Forest Service lands.
29

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

table and enhancements in bird forage and water quality. Working collaboratively 

has enabled Deschutes NF staff to address multiple causes of the creek’s degradation and implement a long-lasting and successful restoration effort. 

Reforestation funded by American Forests and Arbor Day Foundation—

The Deschutes NF has received funding for reforestation from organizations that 

recognize the importance of maintaining healthy forests for ecosystem service 

provision, including reducing erosion and providing a sustainable supply of 

clean water. American Forests and Arbor Day Foundation have provided a total 

of $245,800 for reforestation of over 4,000 acres of the forest following wildfire 

between 2005 and 2008 (fig. 10). 

Potential Ecosystem-Service-Based Partnerships

National Forest Foundation: Carbon Capital Fund—

In addition to funding restoration, the NFF provides financial support for carbon sequestration demonstration projects on national forest lands. The NFF has 

expressed interest in funding reforestation projects on the Deschutes NF that meet 

Voluntary Carbon Standard guidelines. Potential sites would be those in recent fires, 

blowdowns, or other disturbance areas that would not otherwise be planted because 

of high projected costs or inadequate funding. Sites would also need to sequester 

more carbon through planting than through natural regeneration processes. National 

Tom Iraci

Figure 10— Reforestation funded by Deschutes National Forest partners has helped sustain 

ecosystem services provided by healthy watersheds.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

forest lands would not directly enter private carbon markets as offset sites—rather, 

projects would be developed in accordance with standards and guidelines in the 

forest plan, and would be managed for multiple objectives in addition to carbon 

sequestration, including habitat and water quality improvements. Projects would 

also need to incorporate analysis of the financial and ecological costs of planting 

as compared to natural regeneration processes, which provide critical supporting 

ecosystem services. These services include restoration of nitrogen in soils prior to 

revegetation by trees, and increases in plant and wildlife diversity. 

Environmental and conservation organizations—

The Deschutes NF has been very successful at establishing relationships with environmental organizations, land trusts, and watershed councils, particularly through 

the restoration of Whychus Creek and the Metolius River, and landscape restoration 

efforts through Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Many of these partnerships 

are based on common interests in ecosystem services, including restoration of critical habitats and watersheds. Describing the ecosystem service benefits of ongoing 

management actions, such as road decommissioning, tillage practices that mitigate 

soil compaction, and invasive species removal, could attract new investment in 

typical Forest Service projects that do not currently garner as much attention from 

funders. 

Recreation groups—

Hunting organizations like the National Wild Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain 

Elk Foundation, and Ducks Unlimited fund habitat restoration to further their 

recreation objectives and support the forest’s wildlife management goals. By 

planning projects collaboratively in areas that are of high priority for both managers 

and hunters, funds can be leveraged to support restoration. A similar approach 

could be taken with mountain bikers, hikers, off-highway vehicle users, and 

cross-country skiers, whose user groups already donate volunteer hours in areas 

of mutual interest. The forest currently has a Trail Users Advisory Group and is 

developing a forestwide recreation advisory collective managed by its Provincial 

Advisory Committee, which facilitates communication between federal and 

nonfederal entities to help implement the Northwest Forest Plan. As the economic 

benefits of recreation to the Bend community are more clearly defined, related 

industries like equipment suppliers and lodging providers may be motivated to 

become engaged in recreation development on the forest. This could include 

funding or collaboratively planning projects that create new user opportunities 

and enhance visitor satisfaction. 
31

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Community and economic development organizations—

Management of national forest lands is affected by the social and economic conditions of surrounding communities. Ideally, the Deschutes NF and local economies 

could derive mutual benefit from the development of industries for innovative and 

sustainable wood products like biomass. Organizations such as the Central Oregon 

Intergovernmental Council and Sustainable Northwest are supporting the growth of 

conservation-based industries through collaborations with public officials, professionals, entrepreneurs, and potential investors. Through partnerships with these 

stakeholders, the Deschutes NF could develop its role in nascent wood product 

markets and take steps to facilitate their growth. 

A viable biomass economy could serve both economic and ecological objectives. Thinning, for example, can improve watershed values by reducing water 

stress, increasing resilience to fire and disease, and enhancing critical habitat, 

while providing inputs for biomass markets. Many national forests have identified a 

greater forest restoration need than can be addressed by the agency budget allocated 

by Congress. Favorable market conditions for biomass can support sustainable 

wood products industries while providing revenue for restoration. 

Timber production—

Timber continues to be an important ecosystem service provided by national forest 

lands. Understanding the relationship between timber harvests and other ecosystem 

services will inform decisionmaking about where and to what extent logging is 

sustainable or beneficial to forest health by improving habitat and watershed values 

or reducing fire risk. Gains and losses to other services, like recreation and aesthetic 

values, must be considered. Organizations such as the American Forest Resource 

Council, which represents forest product manufacturers and forest landowners, may 

be interested in supporting the development of tools that increase public confidence 

in the planning and implementation of logging operations. A viable forest industry 

also provides capacity to undertake forest restoration activities that require a trained 

workforce and mills to process resulting wood products (Oliver 2009). 

Private landowners—

The type and quality of ecosystem services provided by the Deschutes NF are 

affected by the management of lands beyond its borders. Instream flow for migratory fish, for example, is affected by management throughout a watershed. Because 

private lands account for almost 60 percent of the Nation’s forests, their stewardship 

is critical to sustaining supplies of ecosystem services across the landscape (Collins 

and Larry 2008). Over 11 percent, or 17.9 million acres, of private forests is likely 

to see dramatic increases in housing development by 2030 (Stein et al. 2005 as cited 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

by Collins and Larry 2008). This loss of forest land will affect water quality, fish 

and wildlife habitat, forest health, and recreational access, and could increase pressure on services provided by national forests (Collins and Larry 2008).

By partnering with private landowners, the Forest Service can protect the provision of these services, enhance their quality, and in some cases avoid the need for 

costly management actions on public lands. By testing metrics and sharing methodologies for managing ecosystem services on national forests, the agency could 

support the development of ecosystem service markets in the private sector, which 

present financial opportunities for working forests that extend beyond traditional 

forest products (Collins and Larry 2008). Conceptually, markets compensate landowners who engage in restoration activities that provide ecosystem services, such 

as carbon sequestration, water quality improvements, or enhanced fish and wildlife 

habitat. Buyers of these services include agencies, developers, utilities, industries, 

and others who are required to offset or mitigate their impacts on regulated ecosystem services as mandated by legislation such as the Endangered Species Act, the 

Clean Water Act, or greenhouse gas emissions standards. Other ecosystem service 

buyers are motivated by a desire to protect the quality of a resource that they value 

or rely on, such as biodiversity or clean water. This additional source of revenue for 

private landowners could increase investment in restoration and help them confront 

increasing pressure to convert their forests to other uses. By developing ecosystem 

service metrics on national forest lands, and providing technical assistance to 

private landowners who would like to engage in these markets through the State 

and Private Forestry branch of the agency, the Forest Service can help protect the 

benefits provided by a mixed-ownership forest landscape. 

In addition to facilitating the involvement of landowners in markets, the Forest 

Service can work collaboratively to improve the management of forests beyond its 

borders. The Deschutes NF is authorized by the Wyden Amendment (Public Law 

109-54, Section 433) to enter into cooperative agreements to conduct management 

activities on private lands for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of 

habitat or reduction of fire risk. This amendment was included by Congress in 

the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, and later extended through the end of 

FY 2011, to authorize use of Forest Service funds for watershed restoration and 

enhancement agreements on private or public lands that benefit the resources of 

national forest lands. An ecosystem service approach can help the Deschutes NF 

identify areas of concern and target investments that will enhance the services 

provided across ownerships. 

By partnering with 

private landowners, 

the Forest Service can 

protect the provision 

of ecosystem services, 

enhance their quality, 

and in some cases 

avoid the need for 

costly management 

actions on public 

lands.
33

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Municipal watersheds— 

The city of Bend derives half of its water supply from Bridge and Tumalo Creeks, 

which flow from the Deschutes NF. Forest Service management activities that maintain water quality, including riparian management and prevention of surface runoff 

and erosion, result in water treatment cost savings for the city. Several other municipalities, including Portland, have developed relationships with the Forest Service to 

manage and protect watersheds for drinking water. The Portland Water Bureau has 

signed an agreement with the Mount Hood NF to cooperatively manage the Bull 

Run watershed, a primary municipal water source. This includes joint stewardship 

activities to maintain roads, control invasive weeds, protect streams, and monitor 

water quality. Similar investments by Bend could result in water treatment savings 

for the city and generate co-benefits like habitat restoration. 

Ongoing Research and Future Needs

At the outset, we outlined four potential uses of the ecosystem services concept to 

the Forest Service: (1) describing the various benefits that national forests provide 

to the American public, (2) helping the agency to approach decisionmaking from 

the perspective of ecosystem service outcomes, (3) assessing whether ecosystem 

service flows are in decline and developing strategies for sustaining them while 

conserving resources over time, and (4) facilitating collaborative work with stakeholders, including communities, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations. If we 

are to further pursue these potential uses, we must examine in greater detail how 

the ecosystem service concept can serve each of these purposes. 

This report provides a foundation for this investigation by (1) characterizing 

the concept of ecosystem services as it could apply to national forests, (2) using 

the Deschutes NF as a case study to describe the value of an ecosystem services 

approach, (3) providing examples of how management actions and performance 

measures can be characterized in terms of ecosystem services, and (4) identifying 

partners with potential to collaboratively plan, fund, or implement projects. 

A related purpose of this report is to identify steps that are necessary before 

ecosystem service concepts can be implemented in a management setting. Existing 

Forest Service data and reporting systems do not completely capture the full suite 

of services that national forests provide to the public. Land managers also face a 

paucity of quantified, scale-specific information about ecosystem service use, users, 

and user options that help provide context for the benefits a national forest provides. 

The MEA classification was a useful tool to define ecosystem services generally, 

but a place-based typology is needed that more directly reflects the Deschutes NF 

context. The Pacific Northwest Research Station is in the process of helping define 
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Overview

Phase 1

A. Revise classification

Ecosystem services

(MEA Deschutes NF)

B. Planning or decision process C. Demonstration project

Issues and

problems

Stakeholders

Management Change in

ecosystem 

services

Increase and

decrease

Phase 2

Phase 3

D. Monitoring

Figure 11—Illustration of the ecosystem service framework research progression from the current phase to (A) development of a classification and framework that builds upon the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) to more accurately reflect the Deschutes National 

Forest specifically, (B) integration of stakeholder expectations and place-based management needs for planning and decisionmaking 

purposes, and (C) application of the framework to a demonstration project. 

this typology and develop an ecosystem service-approach to planning and 

decisionmaking (fig. 11). These efforts are described below, followed by 

suggestions for future research. 

Research Overview

Managing for ecosystem services involves understanding the suite of benefits a 

forest provides, clarifying relationships between the quantity and quality of services 

provided and the condition of ecosystems that provide them, recognizing how these 

services are valued by diverse constituencies, and collaborating with stakeholders 

to sustain ecosystem functions and processes across landscapes (Daily 1997b, Kline 

2006). It also involves an assessment of demands or uses of ecosystem services, 

and an analysis of the driving factors that may lead to declines in ecosystem service 

flows over time (Beier et al. 2009; Patterson and Coelho 2008, 2009). Rather than 

focusing on an extensive quantification of ecosystem services provided by national 

forests, which would be very difficult to accurately define for some benefits and 

may not serve management objectives, the emphasis of this effort is to explore how 

ecosystem service concepts can be applied operationally in a management context 

to serve the Forest Service mission. A goal of initial research is to collaboratively 

define ecosystem service benefit categories and investigate how they might be 

addressed or used (depending on scale, issue, etc.). Research will help identify 
35

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

which services can be quantified and which may need to be described and considered in different ways, such as ordinal methodologies for indicating stakeholder 

priorities, or specifying how management activities lead to increases and decreases 

in services, as well as methods for using this type of information in project design 

and prioritization. Most importantly, research will explore:

• How management activities can be planned and communicated in terms of 

ecosystem service outcomes.

• Whether an ecosystem service approach strengthens collaborative decisionmaking internally and with stakeholders.

Ongoing Research

1. Designing an ecosystem service classification for the Deschutes NF

A particular problem that is being addressed in ongoing research is to understand 

public perceptions of ecosystem services, especially the wide array and sometimes 

intangible nature of cultural ecosystem services. Developing this understanding is 

useful for acknowledging cultural values in decisionmaking, and for articulating 

the range of benefits beyond provisioning services that national forests provide to 

the American public. The MEA identifies a few coarse-filter categories of ecosystem services, and a few cultural services, such as historic/heritage, educational, 

and aesthetic services. Likewise, past ecosystem service analyses have focused 

primarily on a few, relatively quantifiable services, such as recreation visitor days 

and scenic values. Yet the Deschutes NF clearly contributes and even helps to 

create many other important offsite and sometimes intangible values, such as 

community character and well-being, outdoor lifestyles, and a sense of place 

for residents of central Oregon. How these services are identified and weighed or 

valued along with more traditional and tangible values of services “coming off” the 

forest (like timber, salmon fishing, and clean water) is an important question being 

investigated. 

Ongoing research is: 

• Exploring public and agency staff perceptions of ecosystem services.

• Developing a typology for using and measuring cultural ecosystem 

services.

• Identifying management challenges, knowledge gaps, and research needs 

that are pertinent to the ecosystem services provided by the Deschutes NF. 

The typology will provide a starting point for applying the ecosystem service 

framework described below. The results will help managers identify the types of 

ecosystem services that are most relevant for particular decisions or restoration 

projects, and will facilitate the involvement of partners in project-level planning 
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

and implementation. The results may also highlight areas of agreement as well as 

points of potential conflict. We will address how to communicate ecosystem service 

concepts to the public and among Forest Service staff in a manner that serves the 

agency’s mission and addresses management challenges. Critical to this investigation is understanding whether ecosystem service terminology resonates with people 

as a reflection of what they value and thereby strengthens collaborative decisionmaking. But the primary purpose of this classification process is to develop a 

typology that is useful for measuring cultural services, and to identify management 

needs, knowledge gaps, and data deficiencies related to cultural services of 

the Deschutes NF.

2. Development of an outcomes-based ecosystem service framework for 

landscape planning and decision support

A principal goal of this research effort is to develop the Deschutes NF’s capacity 

to articulate management decisionmaking and activities from the perspective of 

outcomes (healthy forests, clean air and water) in addition to outputs (miles of roads 

decommissioned, numbers of acres treated). Implicit in this approach is accounting 

for tradeoffs that may result from particular actions, such as soil compaction that 

occurs during intensive logging operations, as well as potential complementary 

and beneficial outcomes, such as fuel reduction projects that both improve forest 

health and enhance critical habitat. This integrated analysis could help managers 

contend with particularly challenging management decisions. For example, “controversial” or sensitive areas like existing owl habitat tend to be avoided for fuel 

treatment because of fear of litigation and uncertainty about how to restore forest 

resilience while safeguarding habitat of protected species. As a result, many of 

these areas remain at elevated risk to high-severity fire. An integrated ecosystem 

service assessment could help managers identify fuel reduction treatments that 

both reduce fire risk and sustain spotted owls in critical areas. A more fire-resilient 

landscape might also protect recreation opportunities and maintain vegetation 

cover that reduces runoff into rivers and streams. Road management is similarly 

complex; roads are one of the greatest sources of erosion on the forest but are used 

for recreation. Analyzing the costs and benefits of a road on a given site from the 

perspective of a suite of ecosystem services could provide a rationale for its decommissioning or continued use. 

This approach to planning could support National Environmental Policy Act 

requirements by providing managers and the public with a new way of comparing 

possible action alternatives. An ecosystem service framework can help clarify 

the relationship between the nature of public benefits provided by forests (water 

quality, recreation opportunities) and the condition of the landscape that provides 

A principal goal of 

this research effort 

is to develop the 

Deschutes National 

Forest’s capacity to 

articulate management 

decisionmaking 

and activities from 

the perspective of 

outcomes in addition 

to outputs.
37

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

them, with an emphasis on ecosystem functions and processes. Ecosystem services 

could help define desired conditions, strengthen a purpose and need statement, and 

justify the rationale for a project design. Describing management outcomes in terms 

of ecosystem services provided can help build trust with the public and illustrate 

the intention of a project. At the agency level, articulating accomplishments and 

performance in terms of ecosystem service benefits can also demonstrate the value 

of national forests to Congress and to the American public more generally. 

Ongoing research will provide a starting point for implementing a practical 

application of the ecosystem service concept based on minimal primary data collection and modeling. Our focus is on helping forest managers explain the beneficial 

outcomes of management actions using a framework that people can understand. 

We will: 

• Produce an annotated bibliography of research literature describing ecosystem service conceptual frameworks and related concepts. 

• Describe, in nontechnical language, an intuitive conceptual framework for 

describing the ecosystem services or benefits provided by forest landscapes 

and their influence on human welfare. 

• Outline key steps involved in using the framework as a basis for landscape 

analysis, including data and analytical requirements. 

• Consider different ways of approaching national forest decisionmaking that 

draw on the ecosystem service concept, but may not necessarily involve 

estimating dollar values.

Future Research

1. Understanding supply and demand for ecosystem services— 

Much is known about ecosystem services provided by national forests, but 

awareness of ecosystem services used by people is often less clear. Understanding 

the demand side of ecosystem services becomes more complex when the picture 

incorporates multiple services and multiple scales in time and space, and when 

we consider all of the ecosystem services that are used indirectly to create and 

transport forest products, or assimilate their wastes. In some cases, those who 

benefit from services provided by the Deschutes NF can be clearly identified and 

quantified, such as the number of visitors, hunters, or outfitter guides who use the 

forest annually. In other cases, beneficiaries might only be known in more general 

terms such as the city of Bend, the forest products industry, or recreation equipment 

suppliers. Understanding the importance of ecosystem services from the Deschutes 

NF also requires a sense of where these ecosystem services might otherwise 

originate. For example, what percentage of wood products sold in the Bend area 

are sourced from the Deschutes NF or from elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest, 
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

or are imported from other countries? To what extent does Bend benefit directly 

from ecosystem services provided by the forest, and how do consumer choices 

reflect demand for ecosystem goods and services imported from elsewhere? Is the 

Deschutes NF carbon neutral? To what extent are forests surrounding Bend able to 

sequester citizen emissions? Questions posed in this way open a valuable discussion 

with the public about the use and value of local, regional, and global ecosystem 

services. The objective of this future study element is to summarize the status and 

trends of a few case ecosystem services used by people and communities, according 

to proximity to a forest landscape, while assessing available options for their conservation. This information can help us to identify the optimal mix of supply and 

demand side interventions that can sustain ecosystem service flows over time for 

the least public cost.

2. Demonstration project— 

One goal of future research is to determine at what scale and at which point in the 

management decisionmaking process an ecosystem service analysis should occur. 

This could be applied early in the process to establish management priorities. An 

assessment of ecosystem service outcomes following management activity can 

also determine whether objectives were met and inform adaptive management. To 

improve understanding of how ecosystem services on national forest lands interact, 

scientists and managers will seek ways to measure and understand the outcomes of 

a range of possible management actions on a demonstration site (fig.11). The final 

structure for the demonstration project is still being developed. It may entail modeling of alternative futures and assessment of how, (1) a suite of ecosystem services 

will be affected by several proposed activities, (2) tradeoffs among services might 

occur, (3) services might change with time and spatial scale, (4) the rate at which 

services are supplied and demanded may be affected, and (5) service flows may 

degrade or diminish over time. We will also consider ways to address the valuation 

of ecosystem services that elude easy monetization and how to incorporate their 

consideration into management. 

This demonstration project will also integrate stakeholder interests into evaluation of possible management outcomes. We will explore how effectively the 

ecosystem service framework and terminology addresses public concerns, supports 

a collaborative process, and garners trust in agency decisionmaking. If possible, 

we will also conduct a demonstration project on the Willamette NF to explore how 

valuation of ecosystem services by stakeholders might vary in different locations. 

This forest is located on the western slope of the Cascade Range and has very 

different ecological characteristics. Perceptions of ecosystem services provided 

by national forests can be shaped by site-specific environmental, demographic, 

cultural, economic, and political factors. This place-based comparison will help 
39

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

illustrate how public involvement in an ecosystem service approach to forest management might be affected by local conditions. Testing of this concept at more than 

one site can also strengthen its potential application on other national forests and on 

other forest ownerships. 

3. Collaborative development of metrics—

Future research will address how to measure or describe ecosystem services in 

a management setting, either qualitatively or quantitatively. Nongovernmental 

organizations in the region, including the Willamette Partnership and Defenders of 

Wildlife, are also working to support a more integrated, functions-based approach 

to land management, including measurement of the benefits provided by healthy 

landscapes. The Willamette Partnership’s Counting on the Environment project 

aims to develop a multi-credit ecosystem marketplace that provides financial 

incentives for restoration activities that deliver multiple ecosystem services 

provided by highly functioning salmonid habitat, wetlands, and prairie as well as 

water temperature improvements in rivers and streams (Willamette Partnership 

2009). They have developed a protocol to measure the benefits that result from 

management activities on private lands, but currently lack a metric for measuring 

the suite of ecosystem services provided by forests. Defenders of Wildlife is also 

interested in creating metrics that measure the value of forest habitats including 

oak woodlands and flood plains. In support of these mutual objectives, the Forest 

Service Pacific Northwest Region, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and the 

Deschutes and Willamette NFs are working with these partners to develop and pilot 

forest and habitat metrics on national forest lands. The resulting products can be 

used as analytical tools for public land managers to assess the ecosystem service 

outcomes of management activities, and can also be applied to ecosystem service 

markets that are developing in the private sector. 

Conclusion

The efforts described in this report will enable scientists and managers to explore 

how ecosystem service concepts can be applied operationally to guide stewardship 

of national forests and support the restoration of functions and processes characteristic of healthy and resilient forest ecosystems. Place-based application brings the 

ecosystem service framework to a new level. This approach highlights the connection between public benefits and ecosystem condition, and addresses management 

challenges by considering the range of services that are affected by projects, as well 

as the tradeoffs that result from particular actions. Framing the benefits of projects 

in terms of ecosystem service outcomes provides the Forest Service with a new way 

to approach forest management and articulate benefits provided to the public. This 

could enhance the ability of the agency to build collaborative relationships with 
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

partners and stakeholders. These partnerships, together with the perspective that 

ecosystem services brings to decisionmaking, are innovative tools for enhancing 

forest stewardship and sustainably managing flows of ecosystem services over time. 

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Mary Wagner, former regional forester, Pacific Northwest 

Region; Cynthia West, deputy station director, Pacific Northwest Research Station; 

and John Allen, forest supervisor of the Deschutes NF, for their leadership and 

commitment to exploring innovative approaches to forest stewardship. We also 

thank Tom Mafera, Cynthia Glick, and Tami Kerr for their invaluable facilitation 

of this research effort at the forest level. Other key Deschutes NF contributors 

included Rod Bonacker, Joanna Booser, Mark Christiansen, Paul Claeyssens, Terry 

Craigg, Maurice Evans, Robert Flores, Katie Grenier, Michael Keown, Maret 

Pajutee, Cari Press, Daniel Rife, Brian Tandy, Rob Tanner, Lauri Turner, Richard 

Wesseler, and Marc Wilcox. The following individuals also contributed valuable 

time to this project: Stanley Asah, University of Washington; Scott Aycock, 

Oregon Solutions; Bruce Aylward, ecosystem economist; Phil Chang, Central 

Oregon Intergovernmental Council; Amanda Egertson, Deschutes Land Trust; 

Kate Fitzgerald, Deschutes River Conservancy; Gordon Grant and Linda Kruger, 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station; Jonathon LaMarche, 

Oregon Water Resources Department; Kreg Lindberg, Oregon State UniversityCascades; Marisa Mazzotta, environmental and natural resource economist; Terry 

Slider, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region; Amy Waltz, The Nature 

Conservancy; and Eric White, Oregon State University. Willamette NF staff 

provided very helpful guidance in the revision process, including Meg Mitchell, 

forest supervisor; Cheryl Friesen, science liaison; and Kathy Bulchis, natural 

resources staff officer. 

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Inches (in) 2.5400 Centimeters (cm)

Miles (mi) 1.6090 Kilometers (km)

Acres (ac) 0.4050 Hectares (ha)

Gallons (gal.) 3.7854 Liters (l)
41

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Literature Cited

Apple, D.D. 2000. Evolution of the Forest Service toward a learning organization. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.

fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/fs_learning.html. (January 2011).

Beier, C.M.; Patterson, T.M.; Chapin, F.S., III. 2009. Ecosystem services and 

emergent vulnerability in managed ecosystems: a geospatial decision-support 

tool. Ecosystems. 11(6): 923–938. 

Bowes, M.D.; Krutilla, J.V. 1989. Multiple-use management: the economics of 

public forestlands. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 357 p. 

Brown, T.C.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Loomis, J.B. 2007. Defining, valuing, and 

providing ecosystem goods and services. Natural Resources Journal. 

47: 329–376.

Carroll, N.; Fox, J.; Bayon, R., eds. 2008. Conservation and biodiversity banking. 

London: Earthscan. 298 p. 

Collins, S. 2007 (7 May). Ecosystem services: a new perspective on forestry. 

Speech. National silviculture workshop. Ketchikan, AK. http://www.fs.fed.us/

news/2007/speeches/05/ecosystem-services.shtml. (January 2011).

Collins, S.; Larry, B. 2008. Caring for our natural assets: an ecosystem services 

perspective. In: Deal, R.L., ed. Integrated restoration of forested ecosystems to 

achieve multi-resource benefits: proceedings of the 2007 national silviculture 

workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1–11. 

Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; 

Naeem, S.; Limburg, K.; Paruelo, J.; O'Neill, R.V.; Raskin, R.; Sutton, P.; 

van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural 

capital. Nature. 387: 253–260.

Daily, G.C., ed. 1997a. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural 

ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 392 p. 

Daily, G.C. 1997b. Valuing and safeguarding earth’s life-support systems. In: 

Daily, G., ed. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. 

Washington, DC: Island Press: 365–374.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Daily, G.C.; Alexander, S.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Goulder, L.; Lubchenco, J.; Matson, 

P.A.; Mooney, H.A.; Postel, S.; Schneider, S.H.; Tilman, D.; Woodwell, G.M. 

1997a. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural 

ecosystems. Issues in Ecology. 1: 1–18. 

Daily, G.C.; Matson, P.A.; Vitousek, P.M. 1997b. Ecosystem services supplied 

by soil. In: Daily, G., ed. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural 

ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press: 113–132.

Deal, R.L.; Raymond, C.; Peterson, D.L.; Glick, C. 2010. Ecosystem services 

and climate change: understanding the differences and identifying opportunities 

for forest carbon. In: Integrated management of carbon sequestration and 

biomass utilization opportunities in changing climate: proceedings of the 2009 

national silviculture workshop. RMRS-P-61. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 9–25. 

Díaz, S.; Tilman D.; Fargione, J.; Chapin, F.S.; Dirzo, R.; Kitzberger, T.; 

Gemmill, B.; Zobel, M.; Vilá, M.; Mitchell, C.; Wilby, A.; Daily, G.C.; 

Galetti, M.; Laurance, W.F.; Pretty, J.; Naylor, R.L.; Power, A.; Harvell, 

D. 2005. Biodiversity regulation of ecosystem services. In: Hassan, R.; Scholes, 

R.; Ash, N., eds. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends—

findings of the condition and trends working group of the Millennium Ecosystem 

Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press: 297–329. 

Eisenhauer, B.W.; Krannich, R.S.; Blahna, D.J. 2000. Attachments to special 

places on public lands: an analysis of activities, meanings, and community 

connections. Society and Natural Resources. 13(5): 421–441. 

Eiswerth, M.E.; Darden, T.D.; Johnson, W.S.; Agapoff, J.; Harris, T.R. 2005.

Input-output modeling, outdoor recreation, and the economic impacts of weeds. 

Weed Science. 53: 130–137. 

Farnum, J.; Hall, T.; Kruger, L.E. 2005. Sense of place in natural resources 

recreation and tourism: an evaluation and assessment of research findings. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-660. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 59 p. 

Hayes, J.P.; Chan, S.S.; Emmingham, W.H.; Tappeiner, J.C.; Kellogg, L.D.; 

Bailey, J.D. 1997. Wildlife response to thinning young forests in the Pacific 

Northwest. Journal of Forestry. 95(8): 28–33. 
43

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2007. Climate change 

2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fourth 

assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, 

Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC Secretariat. 104 p.

Judson, D.H.; Reynolds-Scanlon, S.; Popoff, C.L. 1999. Migrants to Oregon in 

the 1990s: working age, near-retirees, and retirees make different destination 

choices. Rural Development Perspectives. 14: 24–31.

Kline, J. 2006. Defining an economics research program to describe and evaluate 

ecosystem services. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-700. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

46 p. 

Kocis, S.; English, D.B.; Zarnock, S.J.; Arnold, R.; Warren, L. 2003. National 

Visitor Use Monitoring results: Deschutes National Forest. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 21 p.

Kruger, L.E.; Jakes, P.J. 2003. The importance of place: advances in science and 

application. Forest Science. 49(6): 819–821. 

Laskin, D. 2004. A town that’s more than a pretty face. New York Times. March 7.

Mace, G.; Masundire, H.; Baillie, J. , coord. authors. 2005. Biodiversity. In: 

Hassan, R, Scholes, R., Ash, N., eds. Ecosystems and human well-being: current 

state and trends—findings of the condition and trends working group of the 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press: 77–122.

Maleki, S. 2008. Counting all that matters: recognizing the value of ecosystem 

services. Science Update 16. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 12 p.

McKenzie, D.; Gedalof, Z.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Mote, P. 2004. Climatic change, 

wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology. 18: 890–902.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]. 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. 137 p. 

Myers, N. 1997. The world’s forests and their ecosystem services. In: Daily, G., ed. 

Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: 

Island Press: 215–235.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

Naeem, S.; Chapin, F.S., III; Constanza, R.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Golley, F.B.; 

Hooper, D.U.; Lawton, J.H.; O’Neill, R.V.; Mooney, H.A.; Sala, O.E.; 

Symstad, A.J.; Tilman, D. 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: 

maintaining natural life support processes. Issues in Ecology, Number 4. 11 p. 

Neary, D.G.; Ice, G.G.; Jackson, C.R. 2009. Linkages between forest soils and 

water quality and quantity. Forest Ecology and Management. 258: 2269–2281.

Nielsen, J.; Innis, S.; Pollock, L.K.; Rhoads-Weaver, H.; Shutak, A. 2006. 

Renewable energy atlas of the West: a guide to the region’s resource potential. 

Boulder, CO: Land and Water Fund of the Rockies. 82 p. 

Oliver, M. 2009. Old growth revisited: integrating social, economic and ecological 

perspectives. Science Findings 110. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 6 p.

Osmond, D.L.; Line, D.E.; Gale, J.A.; Gannon, R.W.; Knott, C.B.; 

Bartenhagen, K.A.; Turner, M.H.; Coffey, S.W.; Spooner, J.; Wells, J.; 

Walker, J.C.; Hargrove, L.L.; Foster, M.A.; Robillard, P.D.; Lehning, D.W. 

1995. WATERSHEDSS: Water, soil and hydro-environmental decision support 

system. http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/wetlands/manage.html. 

(January 2011). 

Patterson, T.; Coelho, D. 2008. Missing feedback in payments for ecosystem 

services: a systems perspective. In: Chapman, R.L., ed. Creating sustainability 

within our midst: challenges for the 21st century. New York: Pace University 

Press: 61–72. 

Patterson, T.M.; Coelho, D.I. 2009. Ecosystem services: foundations, 

opportunities, and challenges for the forest products sector. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 257: 1637–1646.

Postel, S.; Carpenter, S. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. In: Daily, G., ed. 

Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: 

Island Press: 195–214.

Preusch, M. 2004. Journeys: 36 hours: Bend, Ore. New York Times, October 15.

Smithwick, E.A.H.; Harmon, M.E.; Remillard, S.M.; Acker, S.A.; Franklin, 

J.F. 2002. Potential upper bounds of carbon stores in the Pacific Northwest. 

Ecological Applications. 12: 1303–1317.
45

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview

Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Alig, R.J.; Nelson, M.D.; Theobald, D.M.; Eley, 

M.; Dechter, M.; Carr, M. 2005. Forests on the edge: housing development on 

America’s private forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-636. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

16 p. 

Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Edminster, E.; Fiedler, C.E.; Haase, S.; 

Harrington, M.; Keeley, J.E.; Knapp, E.E.; McIver, J.D.; Metlen, K.; 

Skinner, C.N.; Youngblood, A. 2009. Fire treatment effects on vegetation 

structure, fuels and potential fire severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological 

Applications. 19(2): 305–320.

Tilman, D. 1997. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In: Daily, G., ed. 

Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 93–112.

U.S. Department of Commerce [USDC], Census Bureau. 2000. Population 

estimates for states, counties, places, and minor civil divisions: annual time 

series. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1990. Deschutes 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Bend, OR: Deschutes 

National Forest. 202 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1993. Viability 

assessments and management considerations for species associated with latesuccessional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest—report of the 

scientific analysis team. Washington, DC. 530 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2000. Water and the 

Forest Service. FS-660. Washington, DC. 40 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2005. 100 years of 

conservation... for the greatest good. FS-819. Washington, DC. 9 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007a. An 

assessment of fuel treatments on three large 2007 Pacific Northwest fires. 

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

Northwest Region. 51 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007b. USDA 

Forest Service strategic plan for fiscal years 2007–12. FS-880. Washington, DC. 

32 p.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-852

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of 

decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of 

publication unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and guidelines]. 

White, E.M.; Stynes D.J. 2010. Spending profiles for national forest visitors, 

NVUM round 2 update. Report for USDA FS and OSU Joint Venture Agreement 

No. 10-JV-11261955018. 68 p. http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lulcd/Publicationsalpha_

files/White_Stynes_NVUM2010a.pdf. (March 2011).

Willamette Partnership. 2009. Ecosystem credit accounting: pilot general 

crediting protocol: Willamette Basin Version 1.1. http://willamettepartnership.

org/tools-templates/general-crediting protocol-1. (March 2011).

Woodward, F.I. 1987. Climate and plant distribution. London: Cambridge 

University Press. 188 p. 
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