United States Department of Agriculture

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-943

January

2017

Integrating Ecosystem Services 

Into National Forest Service 

Policy and Operations
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating 

based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 

and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the 

information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Technical Editors

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

Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205; Lisa 

Fong is a hydrologist, State and Private Forestry–Washington office, Cooperative 

Forestry, 201 14th St. SW, Washington, DC 20250; Erin Phelps is a writer/editor, 

Coconino National Forest, 5075 N Hwy 89, Flagstaff, AZ 86004.

Authors

Emily Weidner is an ecosystem planning specialist and Jonas Epstein is an Oak 

Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Economic Research Fellow, National 

Forest System–Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air and Rare Plants, 201 14th St. SW, 

Washington, DC 20250; Tommie Herbert is a natural resources specialist and 

Mary Snieckus is the Ecosystem Services and Markets Program Lead, State and 

Private Forestry–Washington office, Cooperative Forestry, 201 14th St. SW, Washington, DC 20250; Robert Deal is a research forester, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland, 

OR 97205; Nikola Smith is an ecologist and ecosystem services specialist, Pacific 

Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Portland, OR 97204; Tania Ellersick is a biological scientist, Forest Management, 201 

14th St. SW, Washington, DC 20250; Greg Arthaud is a research social scientist, 

Research and Development, 201 14th St. SW, Washington, DC 20250.

Cover photo: Aspen leaves changing color on the Coconino National Forest, USDA 

Forest Service. Photo by Mike Elson.
Abstract 

Deal, Robert; Fong, Lisa; Phelps, Erin, tech. eds. 2017. Integrating ecosystem 

services into national Forest Service policy and operations. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-943. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 87 p.

The ecosystem services concept describes the many benefits people receive from 

nature. It highlights the importance of managing public and private lands sustainably to ensure these benefits continue into the future, and it closely aligns with the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) mission to “sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future 

generations.” In response to growing interest in ecosystem services, the USFS is 

identifying needs and opportunities to incorporate an ecosystem services approach 

into its programs and activities. The National Ecosystem Services Strategy Team 

was chartered in 2013 to collaboratively develop national strategy and policy around 

ecosystem services and integrate them into USFS programs and operations. In this 

report, we identify several focus areas for taking advantage of additional opportunities and needs, and summarize some of the ongoing efforts to integrate ecosystem 

services into USFS policy and operations.

Keywords: Ecosystem services, decisionmaking, policy, USFS planning rule, 

public benefits, ecosystem services markets.
Integrating Ecosystem Services 

Into National Forest Service 

Policy and Operations 

Robert Deal, Lisa Fong, and Erin Phelps

Technical Editors

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-943

December 2016
Executive Summary

The term “ecosystem services” refers to the regulating, supporting, cultural, and 

provisioning benefits people receive from healthy natural systems. The ecosystem 

services concept describes the many benefits people receive from nature. It helps 

us connect with people as we carry out the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) mission to 

sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands 

to meet the needs of present and future generations. The ecosystem services discipline uses science, analytical tools, and collaboration to help the agency implement 

a more transparent and inclusive way of pursuing our mission. It provides the Forest 

Service a frame through which to reveal and address natural and human-caused 

changes affecting management decisions. The science of measurement and reporting helps define and articulate the value of forests and grasslands to people. Analytical tools help us discover and understand tradeoffs between decisions on the ground. 

These elements form the basis for more collaborative and effective relationships 

with people and communities across the urban and rural continuum, helping us 

meet the needs of a diverse range of partners while sustaining the health of the land. 

This report grew from a grassroots effort by Forest Service practitioners 

interested in exploring and integrating ecosystem services approaches into agency 

operations. Their efforts resulted in a focus on ecosystem services in the 2012 

National Forest System land management planning rule. The planning rule sets 

forth processes and content requirements to guide the development, amendment, 

and revision of land management plans to maintain and restore National Forest 

System land and resource ecosystems while providing for ecosystem services and 

multiple uses. As the planning rule developed, practitioners recognized the need to 

develop information and tools about ecosystem services to share across the agency. 

In 2012, an “Ecosystem Services Champions Forum” met in Portland, Oregon, 

with 30 cross-deputy Forest Service participants from the National Forest System, 

Research and Development, and State and Private Forestry. The objectives of the 

forum were to (1) identify issues, opportunities, and challenges for integrating 

ecosystem services approaches into the Forest Service; and (2) develop components 

of a strategy or framework to improve integration of ecosystem services approaches 

into the agency. Two recommendations emerged: (1) develop a common language 

and understanding of the ecosystem services concept and clearly articulate this 

concept both within the agency and with the public, and (2) develop an ecosystem 

services framework that serves the USFS and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

missions. Key elements of this framework are to (1) describe the broad suite of 

benefits provided by public and private lands, (2) highlight connections between 

management actions and ecosystem services, (3) provide tools for outcomes-based 
performance reporting, (4) support integration across program areas, (5) strengthen 

collaborative decisionmaking among staff and with stakeholders, and (6) support 

the development of restoration and conservation incentives for private landowners.

To meet the charge established at the Champions Forum, and in acknowledgment of the increasing importance of ecosystem services thinking for the agency, 

the Associate Deputy Chiefs chartered the National Ecosystem Services Strategy 

Team (NESST) in 2013. The NESST was established to collaboratively develop 

national strategy and policy around ecosystem services and integrate them into 

Forest Service programs and operations. The long-term goal of the NESST effort 

is to identify how integration of ecosystem services concepts and tools into Forest 

Service programs can serve agency goals, and to make recommendations for doing 

so through collaborative strategy and policy. The NESST was rechartered in 2016 

with revised objectives: (1) articulate and demonstrate the relevance of ecosystem 

services concepts across the agency in fulfilling the Forest Service mission; (2) promote an enabling framework of formal policy and informal guidance to support an 

ecosystem services approach to manage federal, state, private, and tribal forests and 

grasslands; (3) build capacity and infrastructure across Forest Service deputy areas 

to manage or secure forests and grasslands to deliver public ecosystem service benefits; (4) design inventory methodologies and data management solutions to improve 

reporting of ecosystem service flows, benefits, and—where appropriate—values; 

and (5) foster two-way communication and learning inside and outside the Forest 

Service regarding ecosystem services and their values to support management 

objectives and improve outcomes. 

Here, we build on past successes and lessons learned to propose an agencywide 

shift to design, integrate, and implement ecosystem services science, tools, and 

communications into Forest Service policy and operations. This approach focuses 

on three key opportunities: (1) consider a broad suite of services in decisionmaking 

and priority setting, (2) quantify and communicate in terms of benefits to people in 

measurement and reporting, and (3) connect providers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services through partnership and investments. Each opportunity offers value to 

the agency and to society but depends on the condition and supply of key ecosystem 

services. Ecosystem conditions, often measured by ecological indicators, are the 

current state of critical ecosystem services found in forest and rangelands. These 

conditions, in concert with human needs and values, are intrinsic to the supply of 

key ecosystem services that are measured by benefit-relevant indicators. Resulting 

societal benefits are measured by benefits assessments. Ecosystem condition, ecosystem services supply, and societal benefits all affect policy decisions and actions 

(executive summary fig. 1). 
Human needs and values 

expressed as desired benefits

Ecosystem Condition

Measured by 

ecological indicators

Ecosystem Service Supply

Measured by 

benefit-relevant indicators

Policy, Management, 

or Project

(Action)

Societal Benefit

Measured by 

benefit assessment

We review current examples to identify additional opportunities and needs 

to be met and provide considerations for ongoing work in integrating ecosystem 

services into USFS policy and operations. We examine efforts in decisionmaking, 

priority setting, measuring, reporting, communicating, and investing in ecosystem 

services. Highlights include the recent support for implementing ecosystem service 

components of the USFS 2012 National Forest System land management planning rule at the forest level and in collaborations at the project level; incorporation 

of ecosystem services into the national Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment 

framework to examine agency outcomes; and innovation in the development of 

incentives for increased best management practice implementation on private lands. 

Our analysis identifies benefits of an ecosystem services approach, including the 

abilities to leverage partnerships with nongovernmental organizations and private 

landowners and managers, support private forest conservation and restoration 

through payments for ecosystem services and markets, enhance connections with 

the public through a more open discussion on the benefits nature provides, inform 

more effective decisionmaking, and increase relevancy of the national forests and 

grasslands to the public. 

The Forest Service, as steward of a geographically extensive and ecologically 

diverse suite of forests and grasslands, is poised to be a leader in the integration of 

ecosystem services concepts in lands management. This report demonstrates the 

breadth of opportunity available to the agency. Through the discipline of ecosystem 

services, NESST is committed to helping the Forest Service pursue its mission to 

meet the needs of present and future generations of people and natural systems.

Figure 1—Ecosystems provide ecosystem services, and subsequently societal benefits. The current and desired states 

of these items inform management actions, which likewise affect the chain of ecological benefits provision. (Modified 

from Olander et al. 2015.)
Contents

1 Introduction 

2 The Ecosystem Services Concept and the Forest Service

2 Development of the Ecosystem Services Concept

5 Potential Added Value to the Forest Service

7 Current Implementation of an Ecosystem Services Approach in the Forest Service

9 Opportunities and Needs

12 Elements of an Ecosystem Services Approach 

12 Decisionmaking, Analysis, and Priority Setting

30 Measuring, Reporting, and Communicating

41 Investment in Ecosystem Services

60 Synthesis 

60 Overview

62 Common Needs

75 How to Get Involved 

77 Acknowledgments

77 References

85 Appendix 1 

87 Appendix 2
1

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Introduction 

Ecosystem services refers to an internationally recognized concept that describes 

and frames the comprehensive set of benefits people receive from nature. The 

prevalence of ecosystem services in natural resource management policy and practice, coupled with recognition of a growing body of related work in the agency, led 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS) to establish the 

National Ecosystem Services Strategy Team (NESST) to “collaboratively develop 

national strategy and policy around ecosystem services and to integrate it into 

Forest Service programs and operations” (NESST 2013). The NESST is composed 

of USFS employees from State and Private Forestry (S&PF), Research and Development (R&D), and the National Forest System (NFS) deputy areas. In addition to 

the NESST staff, a broader network of experts from Business Operations, Climate 

Change, Legislative Affairs, Law Enforcement, USDA partner agencies, and external entities helped develop and refine the content of this strategy document.

The USFS is working to include ecosystem services in planning efforts, develop 

new metrics for valuing ecosystem services, and support emerging ecosystem 

services markets. This report is a synthesis document from NESST that illustrates 

the potential for an ecosystem services approach for the agency. It builds on lessons learned from experimentation and pilot projects, feedback collected from a 

diverse group of staff, informational interviews with thought leaders and agency 

program teams, results of facilitated meetings and brainstorming sessions, and 

desk-based research, along with the knowledge of ecosystem services concepts and 

USFS policy from NESST staff members. This report is organized into three main 

sections: “The Ecosystem Services Concept and the Forest Service,” “Elements of 

an Ecosystem Services Approach,” and “Synthesis.” 

The Ecosystem Services Concept and the Forest Service

Development of the Ecosystem Services Concept

Over the past several decades, the concept of ecosystem services emerged as a way 

to frame and describe the comprehensive set of benefits people receive from nature 

and of recognizing and valuing the underlying ecosystems functions, processes, and 

structures that provide these benefits (Brown et al. 2007, Costanza et al. 1998, Daily 

et al. 1997, Kline 2006). Ecologists popularized the term “ecosystem services” as a 

way to recognize the value natural processes and products provide to society and 

their intrinsic importance to public welfare. The concept appeared in the 1960s and 

1970s, followed by the use of the term by Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981) to garner 

support for biodiversity and sustainable development efforts. In 2005, the internationally recognized Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) further developed 

Ecosystem 

services refers to 

an internationally 

recognized concept 

that describes 

and frames the 

comprehensive set of 

benefits people receive 

from nature.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

and defined ecosystem services as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems.” 

The MEA organized these benefits into four service categories: provisioning, 

regulating, supporting, and cultural (fig. 1) (MEA 2005):

• In the USFS 2012 NFS land management planning rule (planning rule) final 

directives (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 1909.12 §13.12), ecosystem services are defined as “a product of functioning ecosystems that affect social, 

cultural, and economic conditions both within the plan area, in the area(s) 

of influence and the broader landscape” (USDA FS 2015b). The planning 

rule’s definition of ecosystem services closely matches MEA’s definition of 

benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including:

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 

• Water purification and waste treatment 

• Disease regulation 

• Pest regulation 

• Pollination 

• Natural hazard regulation 

Cultural Services 

• Aesthetic values 

• Spiritual and religious values 

• Recreation and ecotourism

Figure 1—The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment used a framework that categorized ecosystem services into provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services. (Reprinted from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005.)
3

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

• Provisioning services, such as clean air and fresh water, energy, fuel, 

forage, fiber, and minerals.

• Regulating services, such as long-term storage of carbon; climate 

regulation; water filtration, purification, and storage; soil stabilization; 

flood control; and disease regulation.

• Supporting services, such as pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation, 

and nutrient cycling. 

• Cultural services, such as educational, aesthetic, spiritual and cultural 

heritage values, recreational experiences, and tourism opportunities.

This ecosystem services approach can be useful to identify and value the benefits 

people receive from nature (Carpenter et al. 2006) and explain those benefits in the 

context of ecosystem functions and processes (Fisher and Turner 2008). Considering 

ecosystem services as “natural capital” leads landowners and managers to regard landscapes as natural assets and ensures that the people who rely on natural functions and 

processes know their value and the cost of losing them (Collins and Larry 2007, Kline 

2006). Although many economists and ecologists have trouble agreeing on the appropriate typology or definition of ecosystem services (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007, de Groot et al. 

2002), the critical importance of ecosystem services to society is commonly accepted.

While the MEA (2005) focused attention on the importance of ecosystem services, it also presented evidence that many key services are degrading. Subsequently, 

there is increasing international interest in enhancing conservation to sustain benefits critical for human well-being including clean water and air, food and sustenance, 

and support for public health (Costanza et al. 1998, Daily et al. 1997). The value of 

ecosystem services is recognized on local and global scales (Daily et al. 1997, Farley 

and Costanza 2010, Kroeger and Casey 2007, LaRocco and Deal 2011)—over 50 

governments, 86 private companies, and a number of financial institutions support 

efforts to factor the value of natural assets into business decisionmaking and national 

accounting (fig. 2) (Patil 2012, Waage and Kester 2014, World Bank 2012).

Incentive programs, like payments for ecosystem services (PES), are widely 

recognized as playing an important role in the provision and restoration of many ecosystem services throughout the world (Casey et al. 2006, Deal et al. 2014, Farley and 

Costanza 2010, Muradian et al. 2010). The PES programs typically offer incentives to 

farmers and landowners in exchange for managing their land to ensure the provision 

of specific ecosystem services. These programs are important to many countries in 

Africa, Asia, and South America, and play a critical role in restoring water, wetlands, 

and habitat to revive degraded services. These programs are becoming an important 

economic incentive for maintaining and improving critical ecosystem services for 

many countries, particularly in the developing world (Farley and Costanza 2010).

Although many 

economists and 

ecologists have 

trouble agreeing 

on the appropriate 

typology or definition 

of ecosystem services, 

the critical importance 

of ecosystem 

services to society is 

commonly accepted.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Potential Added Value to the Forest Service

The USFS is in the early stages of applying the ecosystem services concept to 

operations and management decisions. The concept provides value to the agency in 

several ways. 

1. The ecosystem services concept highlights the broad suite of services 

that national forests provide to the public. It enhances and expands upon 

multiple-use management by including values from forests and grasslands 

that are often not captured in traditional forest management accomplishment measures. Accounting for ecosystem services allows the USFS to 

value traditional commodities like timber and fresh drinking water as well 

as services that are more difficult to monetize, such as cultural or aesthetic 

values. Value can include qualitative and quantitative descriptions of public 

benefits from USFS forests. As this concept becomes more widely understood, its application will improve comprehension of the myriad roles of 

national forests.

France:

Calculating reference

values for in-country 

ecosystems

China:

Various ecocompensation

programs in place

Japan:

National

strategy to

conserve

biodiversity

Vietnam:

Policy enabling

payments for forest

environmental

services

Europe:

Targeting no

net loss of

ecosystems

United States:

Forest Service rules

include ecosystem

services in planning

Colombia:

Regulations enable

watershed payments

Brazil:

Two states

establish a legal

framework for

PES programs

Kenya:

International

valuation

conference 

held

Botswana:

Exploring natural

capital accounting

New Zealand:

Developing ways to

value natural assets

United Kingdom:

Action plan to embed

ecosystem services 

into policy-related 

decisionmaking

Norway:

TEEB study

underway

Figure 2—Global public sector activity related to ecosystem services. TEEB = The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity; 

PES = payments for ecosystem services. (Reprinted from BSR 2014.)

Accounting for 

ecosystem services 

allows the USFS 

to value traditional 

commodities like timber 

and fresh drinking 

water as well as 

services that are more 

difficult to monetize, 

such as cultural or 

aesthetic values.
5

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

2. The ecosystem services concept can help USFS management describe and 

measure activities as outcomes to complement the output-related targets 

required by Congress. Agency performance targets and accomplishments 

are currently reported as readily quantifiable physical outputs, such as 

board feet of timber sold and acres treated to reduce fuel. Such measures 

describe management actions without addressing specific objectives such 

as local jobs created or reducing fire risk for communities. The concept of 

ecosystem services can help tie output-related targets to the ecological and 

socioeconomic outcomes meant to be achieved through such targets.

3. An ecosystem services approach can also help agency staff identify and communicate why particular management actions are needed and clarify relationships 

between the condition of forest ecosystems and the quantity or quality of services 

they provide. This approach can encourage investigations of the causes of ecosystem degradation or impeded function and help land managers identify where 

restoration or other actions are most needed and appropriate (Smith et al. 2011).

4. Managing forests and grasslands to sustain ecosystem functions and processes 

with a focus toward ecosystem services encourages a cross-disciplinary and 

landscape-scale perspective. This approach can help land managers analyze project impacts across resource areas and boundaries, and consider potential tradeoffs 

among ecosystem services provided, rather than focusing solely on one objective 

or working in independent and isolated programs. This will translate into clearer 

priorities and shared goals across geographic and programmatic boundaries.

“The promise of an ecosystem service approach is to illustrate the broad 

suite of public benefits from national forests within the context of multiple scales. An ecosystem services approach gives the Forest Service a 

compelling rationale for management actions by linking people, nature, 

and the work we do to maintain and restore healthy ecosystems.”

—Carl Lucero, USFS Director

Landscape Restoration & Ecosystem Services Research

“Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question shall 

always be answered from the standpoint of the greatest good of the 

greatest number in the long run.” 

—Gifford Pinchot, 1905

The concept of 

ecosystem services can 

help tie output-related 

targets to the ecological 

and socioeconomic 

outcomes meant to be 

achieved through 

such targets.

An ecosystem 

services approach 

can encourage 

investigations of the 

causes of ecosystem 

degradation or 

impeded function 

and help land 

managers identify 

where restoration 

or other actions are 

most needed and 

appropriate.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

5. The ecosystem services approach can help the agency better understand the human 

values related to natural resources and share information about how ecological 

conditions relate to those values. Seeking to understand what people value, and 

why, can help USFS staff prioritize objectives by evaluating tradeoffs to balance 

needs. Dialogue can be enhanced by highlighting connections between public values, the condition of the land, and management steps that may be needed to sustain 

landscape functions over time. Identifying and evaluating these values can help 

to foster collaboration around forest management and increase transparency and 

trust in agency decisions. Seeking out community values provides the basis for the 

USFS social license, or “social contract” in the words of Gifford Pinchot, the first 

Chief of the Forest Service. Understanding which ecosystem services are valued 

most highly in a community, and clarifying the rationale for management actions, 

will help the USFS to develop and implement plans in collaboration with people 

and communities, and to better manage the resources entrusted to the agency.

6. Lastly, an ecosystem services framework, if implemented collaboratively, can 

strengthen relationships among communities, tribes, private stakeholders, and 

other organizations by defining common natural resource stewardship objectives. Identifying the services a landscape provides and understanding human 

use and dependency on those services is inherent in an ecosystem service 

approach (Collins and Larry 2007). By providing a clear framework for describing these relationships, the ecosystem services concept can enhance collaboration and dialogue among interest groups with shared stewardship goals (Smith 

et al. 2011). Describing the outcomes of USFS actions as the ecosystem services 

that various stakeholders value will demonstrate the relevance of the agency 

and its dual commitment to the land and people. 

Current Implementation of an Ecosystem Services Approach in 

the Forest Service

The NESST works with a wide assemblage of collaborators including participants 

of the USFS Ecosystem Services Evaluation Framework (ESEF) team, the USDA 

Office of Environmental Markets, the Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Ecosystem Services Strategy Development Team, and the early adopter forests for 

the 2012 planning rule (USDA FS 2012a). Through consultation with federal partners, collaborating universities, and other cooperators, NESST is helping the USFS 

to develop a number of ecosystem services projects across the agency. With the 

coordination of NESST, the agency is considering inclusion of ecosystem services 

in forest planning, inventory and data management, research and development, and 

collaborative initiatives within and external to the agency. 

Understanding which 

ecosystem services 

are valued most highly 

in a community, and 

clarifying the rationale 

for management 

actions, will help 

the USFS to develop 

and implement plans 

in collaboration 

with people and 

communities, and to 

better manage the 

resources entrusted to 

the agency.

Through consultation 

with federal partners, 

collaborating 

universities, and 

other cooperators, 

NESST is helping the 

USFS to develop a 

number of ecosystem 

services projects 

across the agency.
7

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Forest planning—

Ecosystem services are now codified in the 2012 planning rule 36 CFR §219 (USDA 

FS 2012a). This rule requires land management plans to guide national forests 

toward the provision of ecosystem services and multiple uses to benefit people, 

both presently and in the future. This approach is consistent with the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-531), which is intended to sustain the 

goods and services forests provide and maintain the long-term productivity of the 

land (app. 1). The ESEF was created by Ecosystem Management Coordination 

staff to support implementation of these policies. The ESEF develops resources for 

managers about how best to incorporate ecosystem services in forest planning and 

project development. A USFS cross-deputy area working group is developing this 

framework and assisting national forests that are “early adopters” of the 2012 planning rule. The ESEF led workshops for the Nez Perce-Clearwater, Flathead, and El 

Yunque National Forests in 2013 and for the Helena and Lewis and Clark National 

Forests in 2014. 

Inventory and data management—

The Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment program within the NFS is addressing existing data needs and national monitoring questions. Foremost among these 

needs is a means of measuring and reporting ecosystem services. Furthermore, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requested that the USDA, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provide an inventory of current 

or planned activities that contribute to the identification, assessment, valuation, and 

use of ecosystem services.

Research and development—

The USFS is actively applying an ecosystem services approach in local urban areas 

(e.g., Baltimore and New York City), in regional studies (i.e., Southern Forest Futures 

Project, Forests to Faucets), and in national efforts such as the cross-agency Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Trends (BEST) assessment. In 2011, the President’s 

Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) called on federal agencies 

to better integrate natural resources data (PCAST 2011). Forest Service data (e.g., 

Forest Inventory and Analysis [FIA]) and tools are being incorporated into crossagency efforts such as EnviroAtlas and the Climate Tools initiative. Collection of 

this information could be an ongoing effort, which would allow an up-to-date assessment of current and past USFS efforts and opportunities for further collaboration. 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Collaborative initiatives—

In addition to partnerships already mentioned, staff from the USFS R&D, S&PF, 

and NFS deputy areas are participating in national discussions about applications 

of ecosystem services concepts to land management, including through the 2014 

National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP). The NESP is an initiative of 

Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. It was 

developed in collaboration with the EPA and the Moore Foundation to promote dialogue about ecosystem services applications to resource planning and management.

Opportunities and Needs

This opportunities-and-needs discussion describes the current state of ecosystem services in analysis, decisionmaking, and priority setting for the agency; and future needs 

for resource capacity, data integration and management, communication, and policy to 

implement changes for the agency. The NESST working group is facilitating the pursuit 

of an agencywide shift to design, integrate, and implement an ecosystem services 

approach to USFS policy and operations. The NESST reviewed current approaches to 

ecosystem services within each deputy area (S&PF, R&D, and the NFS) and identified 

three key elements to integrating ecosystem services into USFS policies and operations:

1. Consider a broad suite of services in analysis, decisionmaking, and 

priority setting. This will involve increasing the integration, transparency, 

and success of decisionmaking, analysis, and priority setting by linking 

objectives among the project, forest, program, and national levels. 

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) actively works with urban communities on 

their forests. This work includes determining the ecosystem services (environmental benefits) of urban trees. Research by USFS scientists, including 

Greg McPherson (Pacific Southwest Research Station) and Greg Nowak 

(Northern Research Station), has helped to evaluate the benefits of trees for 

reducing air pollution, urban heat and noise, and road maintenance costs; 

increasing property values; sequestering carbon; and improving aesthetics. 

These values are documented in various research publications. Many are 

also included in the i-Tree software suite, an urban forestry analysis and 

benefits assessment tool that is used by thousands of communities throughout the world. This work on urban ecosystem services is helping the agency 

connect the values of trees and forests to a larger population.
9

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

2. Quantify and communicate the value of resources and impacts of management actions in terms of benefits to people. This will involve synchronized measurement, reporting, and communication both internally among 

USFS management and externally to partners and stakeholders.

3. Connect providers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services. This will 

involve employing available tools to facilitate increased public and private 

investments in ecosystem services markets, including assessments of benefits provided. Increasing the availability of financing to sustain the supply 

of human benefits from positive ecological outcomes will create and support synergies between national forests and surrounding communities. 

Federal Resources in Management of Ecosystem Services (FRMES): 

The Federal Resources in Management of Ecosystem Services (FRMES) guidebook was designed 

to support ecosystem services assessments among 

federal agencies. Sponsored by the Duke University Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy 

Solutions, the National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP) released the FRMES guidebook 

in January 2015 as part of a coordinated effort to 

provide a framework in which federal resource 

agencies could evaluate the ecosystem services of 

a particular action as part of a robust decisionmaking process. Through a deliberative examination of 

U.S. Forest Service programs and initiatives, the 

guidebook has developed credible, scientifically 

based and peer-reviewed approaches and methods 

that can be incorporated into existing agency 

processes and programs.

The assessment framework begins by outlining 

the critical need for ecosystem services in federal 

management as a way to describe how agency 

actions affect the social well-being of people, 

communities, and economies through their affect 

on natural systems functioning. It is intended to 

be a template that could serve a variety of local- or 

project-scale decision contexts, from biodiversity 

management to ecological restoration, risk management, or siting new infrastructure. The guidebook 

walks the reader through an iterative process from 

project scoping and development of social indicators to monitoring decision outcomes and weighing 

tradeoffs through a social impact analysis. It provides visual representations and diagrams, which 

help land managers assess how a given decision will 

catalyze multiple outcomes. Additionally, it helps 

guide planners through quantification and valuation (when appropriate) of marginal changes in key 

services over time (Urban and Olander 2014).

The framework is generic and intended to align 

with other decision support methods already in use 

by academics or consultants. Currently, the authors 

of the study are working with agency personnel to 

determine the next steps for providing concrete and 

agency-specific direction. (See https://nespguidebook.com/ for more information.)
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Opportunities—

For each of the three elements listed above, NESST identified specific opportunities 

to improve the impact and enhance the efficacy of USFS activities by incorporating 

ecosystem services concepts or tools:

Consideration of a broad suite of services in analysis, decisionmaking, and 

priority setting creates opportunities to improve land management practices at 

the project, forest, state, and national level. Identifying the ecosystem services 

affected by planned activities at each of these scales enables decisionmakers 

within and external to the USFS to more completely assess the tradeoffs of various management options and target interventions to maximize public benefits. It 

also helps increase the transparency of national strategies and project activities. 

Furthermore, considering a broad suite of services at both the state and national 

levels and ecologically relevant scales (such as ecoregions) could serve to highlight the interconnectivity of landscapes and foster innovative collaboration 

among beneficiaries and providers. 

To actualize this approach to planning and decisionmaking, the USFS first 

must build internal capacity and leverage capacity of other agencies in quantifing and communicating the value of ecosystem services in terms of benefits 

to people. The USFS manages 193 million acres of forest and grassland across 

the United States. Focusing on the benefits to people could allow the agency to 

better demonstrate the relevance of its programs and resources and illustrate 

the positive impacts of USFS initiatives on society at large. An understanding of the value USFS management actions deliver to people outside of the 

NFS boundary could help promote successful outreach to local communities, 

Congress, and partner organizations. Capturing and depicting this value could 

also create opportunities for the agency to shift its internal approach to gathering and storing data, measuring performance, and assessing the status and 

health of the Nation’s natural resources. Enhancing data quality could unlock 

the potential of ecological and economic scenario analysis using predictive 

geospatially linked models and decision-support tools. Quantifying and communicating this in terms of benefits to people necessitates monitoring outcomes, rather than outputs, from USFS activities. This could help the agency 

reorient its benchmarking efforts from the “what” toward the “why” of forest 

and grassland stewardship.

Consideration of 

a broad suite of 

services in analysis, 

decisionmaking, 

and priority setting 

creates opportunities 

to improve land 

management practices 

at the project, forest, 

state, and national level.
11

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

The agency’s expertise in land management, combined with the significant 

influence it brings to bear as a federal agency, makes it uniquely well-positioned to 

connect providers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services. Connecting providers 

and beneficiaries through innovative partnerships could allow the agency to generate increased investment in the delivery of ecosystem services to the public. The 

$33 million Denver Water Partnership is one example of bringing together USFS 

landscape stewards and local drinking water providers to invest in proactive watershed management. This kind of partnership could enrich the impact of stewardship 

contracting and cooperative forestry programs by incentivizing and rewarding the 

delivery of valuable ecosystem services by land managers. This approach could 

also slow the loss of ecological values by incorporating ecosystem services into 

natural resource damage assessments.

Needs—

Each of the three key elements of an ecosystem services approach presents 

myriad opportunities to bolster the USFS mission through innovation, collaboration, and integration. However, capitalizing on this array of opportunities entails 

overcoming numerous challenges. Each opportunity requires certain conditions 

or actions to facilitate success. With this in mind, this report identifies the 

unique needs that must be addressed to make each of the aforementioned opportunities a reality. Focusing on these needs could enable the USFS to improve 

implementation of an ecosystem services approach and the development of 

applicable tools while increasing productivity across the agency. Four categories 

of needs include:

1. Resources and capacity for cooperation: Increasing the availability of 

resources, capacity of staff, and overall agency infrastructure to support 

cooperation across deputy areas around an ecosystem services approach. 

2. Data integration and management: Surveying, testing, and expanding 

ecosystem services data collection, performance measures. This includes 

an evaluation of existing analytical tools and methodologies to implement 

an ecosystem services approach.

3. Communication: Promoting consistent communication across all levels of 

the USFS to articulate a cohesive and compelling mission to USFS staff and 

the public, potentially reaching new audiences. 

The agency’s expertise 

in land management, 

combined with the 

significant influence 

it brings to bear as 

a federal agency, 

makes it uniquely 

well-positioned to 

connect providers 

and beneficiaries of 

ecosystem services.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

4. Policy: Developing clear and strong guiding language in new and existing 

policies to create an authorizing environment and, where appropriate, mandates for integrating ecosystem services into USFS operations. 

The integration of opportunities and needs for the agency and implementation 

and coordination across Forest Service deputy areas will be a critical component 

for success. In particular, coordination of ecosystem services provision and communication across NFS, S&PF, and R&D will be essential. The following sections 

describe the key elements of an ecosystem services approach for the agency and 

highlight decisionmaking, priority setting, measuring, reporting, and communicating investments in ecosystem services.

Elements of an Ecosystem Services Approach 

Decisionmaking, Analysis, and Priority Setting

Consider a broad suite of services in decisionmaking, 

analysis, and priority setting—

The USFS is extensively involved in decisionmaking, funding allocations, and 

priority setting for both public and private forests. An ecosystem services approach 

can support all of these activities while increasing transparency in the decisionmaking process. The ecosystem services concept can help explain critical benefits 

provided by forests, tradeoffs among competing values, and the rationale for 

management decisions. This can more effectively engage the public in information 

exchange and enhance adaptive management and monitoring activities after implementation of a strategic course of action.

The 2012 NFS land management planning rule states that revised plans must 

contain integrated management components to provide for ecosystem services and 

multiple-use management. The rule requires that forest plans “guide management of 

[NFS] lands so that they...have the capacity to provide people and communities with 

ecosystem services and multiple uses that provide a range of social, economic, and 

ecological benefits for the present and into the future” (USDA FS 2012a). Ecosystem 

services have become a prominent part of the agency’s work in revising and amending 

land management plans (described later in this section). Specific examples of forests 

applying the 2012 rule are mentioned here and in the ”Synthesis” section of this report. 

Other efforts to incorporate ecosystem services into decisionmaking processes include 

consideration of benefits in project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analyses and helping states integrate ecosystem services flows, benefits, and values in 

their statewide Forest Action Plans. Separate detailed reports and products, including 

syntheses and guides, are being developed to compile lessons learned from these early 

efforts and support practitioners with implementation (e.g., Kretchun et al., in press).
13

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

This section provides an overview of opportunities for integrating ecosystem services into the following USFS decisionmaking, analysis, and prioritysetting processes:

5. National program (or resource area) priority setting: Using ecosystem services to inform national program direction, priorities, and funding decisions.

6. Land management planning: Developing components in land management plans that provide for management of ecosystem services within the 

planning area.

7. Project-level NEPA: Framing projects in terms of ecosystem service goals 

and outcomes.

8. State Forest Action Plans: Working with states to highlight and conserve public benefits provided by state and privately owned forests.

National program priority setting—

The ecosystem services concept reflects the Forest Service motto of “caring for the 

land and serving people” by highlighting relationships between nature and human 

well-being. Understanding connections between ecological conditions, landscape 

functions, and public benefits can inform USFS priorities and help the agency better 

target its actions to achieve ecologically and socially beneficial outcomes. Ecosystem 

services can be used as a tool to help allocate funding to regions, forests, and projects; 

prioritize and establish annual goals/targets; assess tradeoffs between proposed activities; and calculate future costs avoided by current interventions. An ecosystem services 

approach can help program leaders develop strategies across program areas as well as 

temporal and geographic scales to efficiently achieve interdisciplinary objectives.

Examples—

• The Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and Allocation System (HFPAS) is a 

systematic process for U.S. Department of the Interior agencies and the USFS 

to allocate hazardous fuels reduction funds to high-priority projects and 

areas. The HFPAS can use ecosystem services to create a national strategy 

for targeting regions with high-intensity fire risk that merit immediate treatments. The system can consider the ecosystem service impacts of high-intensity fires such as diminished water quality in municipal drinking supplies, 

aesthetic damage to viewsheds in recreation areas, degradation of critical 

habitat, and threats to air quality in local communities (Thorsen 2011). This 

is a standout example in considering ecosystem services in decisionmaking.

• The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) is a USFS method for 

improving the health of priority watersheds on national forests and grasslands by implementing integrated restoration activities. The main goals 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

of the WCF are to provide potential partners and investors with details 

on watershed restoration needs and to increase public awareness of local 

watershed conditions. The WCF establishes a consistent and accountable 

approach for classifying watershed conditions using 12 indicators, “representing underlying ecological, hydrological, and geomorphic functions 

and processes that affect watershed condition.” Framing these indicators 

through the associated impacts on ecosystem services can help the USFS 

communicate with partners and the public regarding the social and economic value of particular watersheds. 

The NFS has partnered with the University of Oregon on selected pilot 

forests to help incorporate social and economic indicators and link WCF 

restoration efforts with public benefits including job creation, employment, 

benefits to local businesses, and capacity building. The USFS is in the process of assessing the viability of collecting related data for all forests, as well 

as how this information could be used to guide restoration decisionmaking. 

The WCF has helped guide three USFS regions in the Integrated Resource 

Restoration pilot program that was started in 2012 to help integrate and prioritize landscape-scale restoration and coordinate efforts across program areas.

• The Forest Legacy Program provides grants to encourage long-term 

stewardship of nonindustrial private forest lands through active management of forest resources (USDA FS 2013). Ecosystem services outcomes 

in priority regions could be used as a framework to evaluate project 

applications. Proposals could include a description or calculation of the 

current status of ecosystem services before a project begins, and the projected benefits resulting from project activities in the assessment of need 

(e.g., Western Environment and Ecology, Inc. 2006). This could allow the 

USFS to maximize the impact of its financial support for public environmental benefits.

• The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP)

is one of several USFS programs highlighting connections between restoration and community benefits. Other programs include the Mokelumne 

Watershed Avoided Cost Analysis, Forest to Faucets mapping, Forests on 

the Edge, the Accelerated Restoration initiatives, and municipal watershed 

investments. These programs can use discrete ecosystem service metrics to 

characterize human values in watershed risk and restoration. Public benefits 

and avoided costs resulting from restoration actions can be used to inform 

priority setting and incentivize partnerships.
15

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

• The S&PF’s Urban and Community Forestry program emphasizes the 

ecosystem services provided by healthy trees (e.g., clean air, carbon storage, 

municipal energy savings, etc.) while providing tools and guidance on how 

to translate these benefits to the broader public.

Envisioning the future—Incorporating consideration of ecosystem services into 

national programs and priority setting can help the USFS frame its mission in terms 

of both ecological sustainability and public benefits. This approach has the potential to strengthen connections with the public and encourage integration across 

program areas and policies. An ecosystem services framework can help the agency 

integrate multiple USFS national efforts such as national natural resource management goals (WCF, habitat restoration, timber production, and others), the Climate 

Change Scorecard, the Integrated Resource Restoration program, the Mitigation 

Policy strategy, the R&D Tribal Engagement Roadmap, and the Woody Biomass 

Initiative, which link USFS efforts to global efforts (e.g., the Bonn Challenge—see 

text box). As a first step, the USFS can explore how information within existing 

program structures can be used to consider ecosystem services and tradeoffs across 

alternatives for national policy. The agency may also need to develop capacity to articulate connections between biophysical information and ecosystem services—e.g., 

what benefits does reforestation provide for municipal water utilities? How does soil 

restoration increase forest productivity, improve habitat, or enhance drinking water 

quality? How can the use of urban trees improve air quality? Sometimes the USFS 

can highlight these relationships qualitatively using staff expertise. The agency can 

also work with partners to develop analytical tools and monitoring systems to track 

these relationships and help communicate with stakeholders. 

The Bonn Challenge

In 2011, a ministerial roundtable established the Bonn Challenge, a call for 

the restoration of 150 million hectares of lost forests and degraded lands 

worldwide by 2020. This practical action-oriented platform facilitates the 

fulfillment of the Millennium Development Goals and the implementation of 

several existing international commitments that require restoration, including 

the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Targets, the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation goal, and the Rio+20 zero-net land degradation target. The U.S. Forest Service pledged to restore 15 million hectares of 

degraded forestland, which is the largest countrywide commitment contributing to ecosystem services.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Land management planning—

Land management planning for national forests and grasslands is the principal 

process used by the Forest Service to determine how these lands will be managed 

and what uses are permissible. Today all national forests and grasslands (except for 

those newly established) already have existing land management plans. The focus 

is on the revision of the existing land management plans with greater understanding 

of the role of ecosystem services.

Legal background—The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 

1974 authorizes long-range planning by the Forest Service to ensure the future supply 

of forest resources while sustaining the environment. Planning is based on periodic 

“comprehensive assessment of ... renewable resources through analysis of environmental and economic impacts.” The 1976 National Forest Managment Act (NFMA) 

(16 U.S.C. §1604 (e)(1)) directs that each unit of the NFS shall have land management 

plans that provide for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services in 

accordance with the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) (16 U.S.C. §528). 

Permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of NFS lands 

must be in alignment with land management plans (16 U.S.C. §1604 (i)). The MUSYA 

calls for national forests and grasslands to be managed for “outdoor recreation, range, 

timber, watershed, wildlife and fish purposes.” The MUSYA further defines multiple 

use as “management of all the various renewable surface resources of the NFS.”

There is substantial overlap between provisioning services and the multiple 

uses identified in the MUSYA. Addressing ecosystem services in forest planning 

serves the intent of the NFMA and the MUSYA by addressing benefits provided by 

forests that are not typically associated with multiple uses, particularly supporting, 

regulating, and cultural services (Kline et al. 2013). Incorporating ecosystem services into consideration of ecological, social, and economic goals can enrich these 

analyses and strengthen understanding about connections between natural resource 

management and public benefits. Framing forest management in terms of ecosystem 

services also highlights how the management of national forests and grasslands 

contributes to human well-being in a broader landscape.

Planning rule authority—The 2012 NFS land management planning rule (36 

C.F.R. §219) is the regulation developed by the USFS to implement planning required by the NFMA. The purpose of the planning rule is: 

...to guide the collaborative and science-based development, amendment 

and revision of land management plans that promote the ecological integrity 

of national forests and grasslands and other administrative units of the 

National Forest System (NFS). Plans will guide management of NFS lands 
17

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

so that they are ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability; consist of ecosystems and watersheds with ecological 

integrity and diverse plant and animal communities; and have the capacity 

to provide people and communities with ecosystem services [emphasis 

added] and multiple uses that provide a range of social, economic and 

ecological benefits for the present and into the future (36 C.F.R. §219.1(c)). 

The planning process is defined in this rule as consisting of three major phases: 

1. Phase 1: Assessing available information relevant to the plan that is summarized in an assessment report.

2. Phase 2: Developing, revising, or amending the plan itself. 

3. Phase 3: Implementing the plan through a set of projects and activities and 

monitoring the results of this implementation in the area governed by the plan.

Public participation and use of best available scientific information are required 

throughout all three phases.

The 2012 planning rule defines ecosystem services as 

“Benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including:

1. Provisioning services, such as clean air and fresh water, energy, fuel, 

forage, fiber, and minerals;

2. Regulating services, such as long-term storage of carbon; climate regulation; water filtration, purification and storage; soil stabilization; flood 

control; and disease regulation;

3. Supporting services, such as pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation, 

and nutrient cycling; and 

4. Cultural services, such as educational, aesthetic, spiritual and cultural 

heritage values, recreational experiences and tourism opportunities (36 

C.F.R. §219.19).”

The planning rule requires specific consideration of human benefits obtained 

from the plan area (ecosystem services) in the assessment (36 C.F.R. §219(b)(7)). 

Plans revised under the planning rule must contain integrated plan components to 

provide for ecosystem services and multiple-use management (36 CFR §219.10(a)). 

Thus the rule provides legal support for ecosystem services as a facilitating 

approach for collaborative and science-based planning. 

Planning directives—The final USFS planning directives to implement the 2012 

planning rule consist of the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1920 and Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) 1909.12. They contain the agency’s policy for developing, revising, and amending land management plans, and the content to be included in those 

plans. Themes related to specific ecosystem services (e.g., recreation or timber) can 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

be found throughout the directives, and ecosystem services are specifically discussed in the FSH (assessment in chapter 10, §13.12; and the land management plan 

in chapter 20, §23.21(b)).

The directives focus the planning process on a set of priorities, or key, ecosystem services to be identified and evaluated for forest plan assessments in individual 

forests (fig. 3). The assessment phase of planning serves this purpose by identifying 

the key services that will be addressed by plan components. Key services are also 

expected to be used in the comparison of alternatives in the environmental impact 

statement. Key ecosystem services are defined as:

Ecosystem services provided by the plan area that are important in the 

broader landscape outside of the plan area and are likely to be influenced by 

the land management plan (FSH 1909.12, zero code chapter, §05).

The focus on key ecosystem services is intended to prevent the planning 

process from investing too much time or energy on ecosystem services that are 

of minimal importance or would not be affected by the plan. Engagement with 

the public is an important process to determine the key services of concern. The 

directives (FSH 1909.12, chapter 10) indicate that the assessment needs to identify 

and evaluate available information about each of the key ecosystem services. This 

information can include the following:

• The conditions and trends of the key ecosystem service.

• The drivers and stressors (§12.3 and 13.13) likely to affect future demand 

for and availability of the key ecosystem service.

Figure 3—National forests provide a broad suite of key ecosystem services including timber, water, 

recreation, and cultural values.

USDA Forest Service

The focus on key 

ecosystem services is 

intended to prevent the 

planning process from 

investing too much time 

or energy on ecosystem 

services that are of 

minimal importance or 

would not be affected 

by the plan.
19

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

• The current conditions and trends of the ecosystems or key characteristics 

of ecosystems (§12.14) that currently maintain the plan area’s key ecosystem service.

• The influence of lands outside the plan area or other conditions beyond the 

authority of the Forest Service that influence the plan area’s ability to provide the key ecosystem service.

• The relationship of the key ecosystem service to social, cultural, and economic conditions (§13.12 and 13.23).

The planning rule requires that land management plans include “plan components, including standards or guidelines, for integrated resource management 

to provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses in the plan area” (36 CFR 

§219.8 and 219.9). Plan components (desired conditions, objectives, suitable uses, 

standards, guidelines, and goals) govern subsequent project and activity decisions. 

The directives’ approach is that the set of plan components provides for the key 

ecosystem services. This does not necessitate providing unique plan components for 

every key ecosystem service, but there should be a linkage between each of the key 

services and the plan components (FSH 1909.12 chapter 20 §23.21b).

The plan must also characterize the distinctive role and contribution of the plan 

area to the local area, region, and nation (36 C.F.R. §219.2(b)). This distinctive role 

and contribution can include unique attributes related to uses, values, and products as 

well as influences on social, economic, and ecological sustainability. Some key ecosystem services may be recognized as part of this distinctive role and contribution.

The final phase of plan revision is development of a monitoring plan, which is 

intended to track plan effectiveness. Although it is not explicitly required, making 

connections between monitoring questions, data, and key ecosystem services will 

serve to evaluate plan efficacy. This need not involve collection of copious data— 

rather, monitoring can help frame available data to evaluate the contribution of 

ecosystem services in social and economic as well as ecological terms.

Ecosystem Management Coordination (EMC) is engaged in several efforts 

to share information with staff about the intent of the planning rule and provide 

resources for implementation. The ESEF team has developed a variety of tools 

and advice bulletins regarding selection and quantification of ecosystem services 

(if desired), examples of economic and ecological indicators for monitoring, 

and workshops for forests embarking on plan revision. Because EMC does not 

prescribe a particular approach, these tools can be applied in a variety of ways, 

and implementation differs. Forest Service staff are also compiling lessons 

learned at regional levels for use by forests as they begin the revision process 

(e.g., Kretchun et al., in press).
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Land Management Planning Under the 2012 Rule: Early Examples

Seven national forests (NF) were selected in 2012 to be the first to revise their 

land management plans using the 2012 planning rule: the Nez Perce and Clearwater NFs (Idaho); the Chugach NF (Alaska); the Cibola NF (New Mexico); the 

Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra NFs (California); and the El Yunque NF (Puerto Rico). 

Most of these forests have completed draft assessments and released them to the 

public. Several of these early adopter forests are developing draft plan components 

that address ecosystem services, and some are considering strategies to analyze 

potential changes in ecosystem services and conduct tradeoff analyses. Key 

participants in these efforts have been U.S. Forest Service staff at individual units, 

regional offices, and enterprise units (Miller et al. 2014). 

The 2012 planning rule does not prescribe precisely how to approach ecosystem services assessments and plan components; therefore, early adopter treatment 

of the concept differs considerably. Efforts are underway to capture lessons 

learned as forests embark on plan revision under the rule. 

Early Adopter Spotlight: El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico

The El Yunque NF offers one of many examples for addressing ecosystem services 

in plan revision. Colleagues from the urban tropical El Yunque NF, the USFS 

Southern Research Station, and community leaders from eight neighboring municipalities worked together to identify local stakeholders’ perspectives on the benefits 

the El Yunque provides. The research project (1) assessed stakeholder knowledge 

of local ecosystem services, (2) documented the geographic distribution of land 

cover around El Yunque and its effect on the forest’s ecosystem services, (3) 

developed geospatially linked data on priority areas for ecosystem service provision to support planning, and (4) explored the potential role of landowner incentive 

conservation programs in areas adjacent to the forest. Research project participants 

also identified change drivers affecting El Yunque’s ecosystem services. 

Building on this foundation, the Ecosystem Services Evaluation Framework 

team, members of the National Ecosystem Services Strategy Team, Forest Management Office staff, and the El Yunque Forest Plan Revision Team met in 2013 

to identify and assess key ecosystem services. The group selected key services 

provided by El Yunque and discussed the conditions, trends, and risks for each. 

Participants selected analytical tools and methods for assessing and evaluating 

tradeoffs among these services. They demonstrated that simultaneous consideration of processes, functions, benefits, and trends can support better informed 

planning activities and future project-level decisions (Miller et al. 2014).
21

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Envisioning the future—A forest plan may characterize ecosystem services in 

qualitative, quantitative, or economic terms, depending on data availability, planning objectives, and context. A critical next step is to determine how existing data 

and models can be applied to characterize changes in ecosystem services at various 

scales within a forest planning area. Framing management objectives and effects 

in terms of ecosystem services provides opportunities for outcomes-based performance monitoring and reporting. However, these processes should build on existing infrastructure and be cost-effective, accessible, and scientifically defensible. 

Through an iterative and adaptive process, forest managers can use an ecosystem 

services framework to clearly delineate and demonstrate the value of forest and 

grassland conservation and management in contributing to a broad spectrum of social, ecological, and economic benefits to communities. 

Project-level decisionmaking through the NEPA process—

Legal authority—The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

§4321) seeks to foster “productive harmony” between humans and nature. The 

regulation references the “human environment” interpreted “to include the natural 

and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment” (40 

C.F.R. §1508.14 as quoted by Bear 2014). This relationship is central to the ecosystem 

services concept. Federal agencies are directed by Congress to “utilize a systematic, 

interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and 

social sciences....in planning and decision-making” (42 U.S.C. 4332(A)). The NEPA 

also requires public participation in environmental analyses of project-level impacts, 

which highlights the relevancy of relating impacts directly to human well-being. 

Current efforts and guidance—The 2012 planning rule (§219.10, §219.10(a)(1), 

§219.8(b)(3)) requires that a land management plan include components for integrated 

resource management to provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses. Forest 

plans provide the context for project-level management. Key services are identified in 

the Forest Plan Assessment to help establish the purpose and need for revising a forest plan. The USFS does not formally require staff to address ecosystem services at 

the project level. However, some projects may tier to or reference key services in their 

rationale for action. National forests using plans developed under the 1982 NFS land 

and resource management planning rule may find it beneficial to address ecosystem 

services at the project level, particularly for complex or landscape-level actions. 

Individual national forests and ranger districts are exploring various beneficial 

applications of ecosystem services in the Forest Service NEPA process, represented 

in figure 4. Ecosystem services can support the proposal development phase of NEPA 

by making connections between ecological conditions, goods and services, and the 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

purpose and need for action. In other words, ecosystem services can help “tell the 

story” of what’s occurring on the landscape and why management is needed in meaningful terms. Several Forest Service units are engaging the public earlier in planning 

processes to strengthen participation in project design. Ecosystem services can be 

applied in these efforts to underscore connections between the land and peoples’ 

values, and demonstrate how USFS management actions relate to those values. 

Most Forest Service decisions are Categorical Exclusions or Environmental 

Assessments, which do not require economic and social impact analysis. Many staff 

are working to streamline the NEPA process, rather than add unnecessary process. 

With this in mind, ecosystem services should be seen as a tool to support management decisions, rather than adding burdensome analyses. Addressing ecosystem 

services in the “pre-NEPA” phase can support proposal development and contribute 

to a project’s success by communicating relevance and engaging the public.

Figure 4—The Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Planning Model showing different phases of proposed NEPA action: proposal development, environmental analysis, and 

implementation. Reprinted from the Forest Service Handbook 1909.15. 

Ecosystem services 

should be seen as 

a tool to support 

management 

decisions, rather than 

adding burdensome 

analyses. Addressing 

ecosystem services 

in the “pre-NEPA” 

phase can support 

proposal development 

and contribute to a 

project’s success 

by communicating 

relevance and 

engaging the public.

Proposed action

Proposal development

Environmental analysis

Consistency

with laws

Monitor

and evaluate Appeals Notifications

Plan

consistency

Purpose

and need

NEPA

applies

Scoping

Alternatives

Effects

Findings

Implementation

Decision

Proposal
23

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

The USFS is involved in collaborative efforts with other federal partners to 

explore methodologies and lessons learned for supporting the intent of NEPA 

through ecosystem service applications. Chartered as a partnership between the EPA 

and Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions (NESP), 

the NESP connects directly with public agencies and private sector experts to 

strengthen coordination of policy, market implementation, and research in the field of 

ecosystem services. Most recently, NESP focused its attention on creating a federal 

guidebook (Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook) 

to “develop credible approaches for incorporating ecosystem services into natural 

resource planning and management” (NESP 2014). The guidebook was developed in 

close collaboration with the USFS, which contributed several case studies and peer 

review. This resource explores opportunities and existing ecosystem service planning 

developments within federal land management agencies at various scales, identifies 

data and modeling infrastructure necessary for a fully integrated framework, and 

lays out a methodological approach for ecosystem service evaluation and analysis 

at a project- or landscape-specific level, from scoping through decision-support and 

Deschutes National Forest: Early Applications

“Using an ecosystem services perspective is like moving from black 

and white to full-spectrum color, in terms of the richness of analysis 

and the ability to communicate it to the public.”

—John Allen, Supervisor, Deschutes NF

In 2009, the Deschutes National Forest in Oregon partnered with the Pacific 

Northwest Research Station to establish a management framework that could 

address the full suite of ecosystem services provided by the forest. Staff identified several potential benefits of applying ecosystem services to planning at 

various levels, including:

• Highlighting a diverse set of benefits

• Supporting integration across disciplines

• Understanding tradeoffs

• Attracting and building partnerships

• Strengthening public engagement 

In 2011, the Crescent Ranger District launched a pilot to test the use of 

ecosystem services in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project 

planning. The Marsh Project was completed in four phases: education and 

outreach about the ecosystem services concept (see fig. 6, p. 31), discussion 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

of prioritized value perceptions, drawing connections between values and 

ecological conditions, and development of an organizational framework to 

translate values into discrete NEPA-proposed actions. This project is exploring how an ecosystem services strategy can shift the Forest Service management process—instead of “bringing a proposed NEPA action to the public and 

asking for comments, the agency is asking the public for input in designing 

the proposed action” (Foley et al. 2014).

This approach emphasizes early information exchanges with the public, 

and among staff, to increase transparency and highlight the rationale for 

action to achieve interdisciplinary objectives. Rather than starting with a 

primary management objective or action (such as a fuels treatment to reduce 

fire risk) and mitigating potential impacts of that action, staff took a more 

proactive vision across resource areas to address a range of goals. Interactions 

among services, such as soil conditions, site productivity, hydrology, habitat, 

cultural uses, and forest products, were emphasized to support integrated 

planning. Staff gained a better understanding of other disciplines, and the 

relationships between ecological conditions and public benefits. Possible 

management actions were presented in terms of positive, negative, and neutral 

interactions with sets of services to tell a cohesive story about management 

needs and possible outcomes.

Figure 5—U.S. Forest Service employees discuss the broad suite of services provided in the Marsh 

Project planning area, Crescent Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon, in 2013. 

T. Ellersick
25

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Willamette National Forest: All-Lands Approach

The South Santiam watershed on the Willamette National Forest’s Sweet Home 

Ranger District has a checkerboard U.S. Forest Service (USFS)/private ownership pattern. Representatives from the USFS (regional office, State and Private 

Forestry, and Pacific Northwest Research Station), local watershed councils, and 

private land managers engaged in a collaborative process to (1) determine the 

inherent capacity of the “Cool Soda” planning area (including Soda Fork) to produce a variety of ecosystem services based on its ecological characteristics; (2) 

understand changes to that capacity based on historical land uses and existing 

conditions; and (3) develop a restoration plan to restore these services at a level 

that is ecologically sustainable, economically viable, and socially acceptable.

The team produced a restoration proposal that includes project recommendations and potential ecosystem services outcomes. Proposed restoration 

actions were tied to projected ecosystem services provided in addition to 

target accomplishments (Smith 2012). This planning approach helped leverage 

funds for the district and the community, including a $460,000 grant awarded 

to the city of Sweet Home from The Conservation Fund’s Livability Initiative, 

which emphasizes the integration of economic and environmental goals.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge

The ecosystem services approach facilitates open discussion and incorporation of cultural values, including “traditional ecological knowledge” into 

national forest management actions. Traditional ecological knowledge is 

defined by Jim Ransom, Director of Tehotiiennawakon, Mohawk Council of 

Akwesasne as: “a science rooted in our relationship with creation and based 

on living in peace and harmony with the natural world.”

Indigenous populations throughout the United States are particularly vulnerable to climate-change impacts, confronting disproportionate risks to their 

culture and economies (Lynn et al. 2011). These tribes and indigenous groups 

have centuries of locally relevant experience managing natural resources that 

can be more effectively integrated into collaborative natural resource planning 

under an ecosystem services framework. Traditional ecological knowledge 

can provide insights into how our Nation’s forests and grasslands respond 

to human interventions and changing climate conditions. It can suggest new 

strategies to manage these areas for a variety of ecological goods and services, 

social and cultural uses, and economic benefits.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

analysis (Bear 2014). These efforts could enhance the NEPA process by highlighting potential decision-support tools that illustrate stakeholder values and priorities, 

establish linkages with those values and ecological conditions, and help translate 

public priorities into actionable and quantifiable management decisions.

Envisioning the future—Distilling the lessons learned from these early pilot 

projects into digestible guidance will help NFS units consider options for applying ecosystem services to planning processes. Because USFS decisions differ 

in scope, scale, context, and data availability, a diverse toolbox will serve the 

agency well. Understanding and adopting an ecosystem service approach is an 

evolving process, so this guidance should be reevaluated and updated as more 

experience is gained.

The collaborative process of understanding landscapes and the benefits they 

provide can be informative and iterative, with potential applications to a range of 

decisionmaking priorities, including wilderness management, fire-risk reduction, 

and sustainable harvesting of timber and nontimber products. Consideration of a 

range of metrics including monetary, nonmonetary, quantitative, and qualitative 

measures can increase the scope of benefits that are considered, including cultural 

values that are difficult or inappropriate to monetize. Taking a more comprehensive 

interdisciplinary approach to landscape analysis can inform the agency’s understanding of tradeoffs and the potential outcomes of actions, potentially leading 

to more effective management decisions. Where appropriate, field- and forestlevel decisionmaking and planning can be supplemented with the use of existing 

decision-support methods and tools. These instruments are capable of comparing 

management scenarios to determine avoided costs of management actions. These 

types of tradeoff and effectiveness analyses may help inform comparisons of the 

environmental effects across alternatives in the NEPA process. However, applying 

ecosystem services to decisionmaking processes does not require complex assessments, and caution should be taken against “analysis paralysis” that doesn’t serve a 

decision or support communication with the public. Additional guidance or advice 

is needed to determine if and how existing ecosystem service tools and models can 

be feasibly applied, in a defensible manner, to support USFS decisionmaking under 

NEPA, and to understand existing data and modeling gaps that the agency could 

help fill to tell meaningful stories about management outcomes. This guidance 

should include direction on situations in which these tools and models are most 

effectively applied.

Effective public engagement and meaningful articulation of management 

outcomes are important components of the agency’s future. The ecosystem services 

approach is a powerful tool for strengthening our connections with constituents 

Consideration of 

a range of metrics 

including monetary, 

nonmonetary, 

quantitative, and 

qualitative measures 

can increase the 

scope of benefits 

that are considered, 

including cultural 

values that are difficult 

or inappropriate to 

monetize. 
27

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

and communicating the relevance of forests and forest management. While this 

may involve more time allocated to the proposal-development phase of planning, 

this investment has the potential to payoff later in the NEPA process by engaging 

stakeholders early, increasing trust and thereby decreasing the amount of time spent 

resolving objections and litigations. Enhancing engagement and mutual understanding may increase the likelihood of project implementation.

Applications of ecosystem services to NEPA in the USFS should prioritize 

efficiency—namely leveraging existing information and expertise in innovative 

ways to tackle challenges and sources of conflict, and working with partners to 

fill gaps in information and capacity. Ecosystem services applications should be 

seen as a tool to address needs rather than create challenges. Articulating management rationales using the ecosystem services concept can enhance communication 

regarding the relationship between strategic decisions and ecological conditions, 

and subsequent benefits to the public.

State Forest Action Plans—

The USFS has a directive to not only manage national forests for the benefit of the 

public in perpetuity, but to collaborate with state foresters and private landowners to provide financial, educational, and technical assistance to maintain and 

conserve our nation’s forest-based resources. State and private forest land encompasses about 56 percent of America’s total forest cover (USDA FS 2008b). These 

forests are critical contributors to the health of our nation’s social, economic, and 

ecological systems, providing multiple public ecosystem services benefits such as 

clean air, forest products, recreation, and wildlife habitat. State foresters have the 

responsibility to assist municipal governments and “nearly ten million family forest landowners [who] manage and protect state and private forests” (NASF 2014). 

The S&PF deputy area can work with state foresters to promote an ecosystem 

services approach to state and private forest management. Stewardship of these 

resources is critical to sustaining ecosystem services across public and privately 

owned landscapes.

Legal authority—

In 2008, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, also known as the U.S. Farm 

Bill, established updated direction regarding forest management goals on state and 

private lands. The landmark bill requires each state to complete a statewide forest 

resource assessment and strategy no less than every five years (Cerretani and Jones 

2011). These assessments, called forest action plans, include analyses of current forest conditions and trends, assessments of overall forest health, delineations of priority forest landscape areas, and long-term strategies to focus resources on addressing 
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

threats and opportunities. Together, the forest action plans provide a comprehensive 

assessment of U.S. forest land (public and private) and illustrate potential next steps 

to conserve, protect, and enhance forest resources (NASF 2014). Recommendations 

are state specific and incorporate public input and local expertise. Forest action 

plans and the statewide forest resource assessments that produce them represent a 

major avenue for taking a coordinated ecosystem services approach in state-level 

natural resource inventories and long-term planning on conservation and economic 

development. Statewide assessments are guided by three important objectives:

• Preserve working forest lands.

• Protect forests from harm.

• Enhance public benefits from trees and forests.

This last objective establishes the legal authority and requirement for state forest action plans to take an ecosystem services approach to guide forest management 

on state and private lands (NASF 2014).

Early examples—

Most states completed their forest resource assessments and forest action plans 

in response to the U.S. Farm Bill in June 2010. Southern states were particularly 

successful at addressing ecosystem services in their plans. Their work presents very 

clear data establishing the important role of state and private forests in the Southern 

United States for the provision of significant public benefits:

• Florida’s assessment highlighted that hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing 

supported about 120,000 jobs in 2007.

• Tennessee’s urban FIA project estimates the value of its urban forests for 

removing pollutants from the atmosphere is over $203 million annually.

• Georgia’s state forestry assessment found that its forest industry employs 

128,000 people at an estimated economic benefit to the state of nearly 

$29 billion.

• Texas conducted a statewide ecosystem services valuation published in 

2013, and discovered that its forests provide $92.9 billion annually in public 

ecosystem services benefits (Simpson et al. 2013).

The USFS Southern Region is leading state and private forest planning through 

meaningful followup on these assessments and forest action plans:

• The USFS Southern Region developed a summary analysis of state results. 

A common theme was a need to better communicate and enhance the ecosystem services and social benefits of forestry. In particular, state agencies 

highlighted the need to steward forests for provision of high-quality water 
29

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

supplies, especially in the face of forest fragmentation threats owing to 

development and increased demand for clean water from urbanization and 

agriculture (Cerretani and Jones 2011). 

• The USFS is collaborating with the Southern Group of State Foresters to 

develop procedures and methodologies for standardizing ecosystem service 

valuation in the south. The goal of the project is to provide individual states 

with guidelines that better enable them to quantify and value ecosystem 

services provided by forests. 

• The USFS Southern Region capitalized on the research conducted for the 

state forest action plans to establish the Southern Forest Futures Project, an 

effort to forecast probable changes in southern forests between 2010 and 2060. 

Envisioning the future—State forest resource assessments and forest action plans 

present critical opportunities to inventory ecosystem services benefits from state 

forests, create state-level priorities for ecosystem service outcomes from public and 

private forest management, and establish strategies to dedicate finances to address 

threats to ecosystem service provision. State foresters have identified numerous 

data gaps that presented challenges in assessing forest resources across all lands 

(NASF 2014). Gaps were predominantly related to the completeness, availability, 

scale, and accuracy of data. The USFS can dedicate staff and resources to filling 

data gaps in preparation for anticipated forest action plan development. If the USFS 

lacks adequate data on the broader landscape, this underscores the importance of 

state agencies in filling that information gap in the “all-lands” management approach. Following the example of the Southern Region, the USFS S&PF staff in the 

Washington office can help regional offices guide state foresters to develop action 

plans with an ecosystem services perspective. Regional offices can also collaborate 

with state foresters to help link national and regional ecosystem services priorities. 

The National Association of State Foresters and USFS share an interest in using 

ecosystem services concepts, metrics, and methods to develop outcomes-based 

performance measures for management actions and expenditures. The National 

Association of State Foresters (NASF) has requested S&PF assistance to improve 

measures used to assess and report on the outcomes of state, federal, and nongovernmental investments in improving the health of nonfederal forests. This effort 

involves USFS representation on a NASF Subject Matter Expert Committee to 

enhance available data systems, current reporting, and program accomplishments. 

This effort will be mutually beneficial and will inform opportunities for developing 

more meaningful outcomes-based measures for USFS programs on NFS lands.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Measuring, Reporting, and Communicating

Quantify, and communicating the value of resources and impacts of management actions in terms of benefits to people—

The ecosystem services approach offers tremendous potential for quantifying and 

communicating the importance of healthy forests and grasslands and articulating 

their value to people and communities. To demonstrate how agency management 

decisions and program expenditures correlate to human well-being, the biophysical 

metrics collected by the USFS must be translated into terms of services provided 

to society. This information can be centrally stored for more direct access and 

analyzed in national assessments to give larger scale overviews of the condition and 

contributions of our public resources. Ecosystem services offer a way to translate 

typical USFS outputs into social outcomes and benefits. For example, the number 

of forest acres thinned for fire risk reduction would affect the amount of carbon 

sequestered. Quantification of ecosystem services facilitates adaptive management by measuring marginal changes in ecological and economic conditions—by 

delineating how a particular action affects resource flows, managers can alter and 

evaluate their plans accordingly in an iterative process. As discussed in the previous 

section, quantification also fosters more defensible and informed land management 

decisions. Additionally, assessment of total economic value and baseline flows of 

goods and services can convey the importance of forests and communicate the 

relevance of agency actions to Congress and the public. 

A strong effort is underway to account for a more comprehensive range of 

indicators in performance measurement and program evaluation at the USFS. The 

agency is thinking more broadly about the effectiveness of its programs in meeting 

goals attached to appropriations. Ecosystem services concepts can be meaningful 

tools for the agency to actively monitor progress and performance while reinforcing 

the connection between land and people. For example: 

• In November 2012, the USFS Sustainable Landscape Management Board 

of Directors was tasked to work with the Strategic Planning and Budget 

Analysis Office to improve agencywide performance measures to better 

capture the outcomes and impacts of agency activities. 

• The agencywide inventory, monitoring and assessment (IMA) team is 

redrafting national management questions to assess progress toward 

national objectives based on data availability. The IMA framework incorporates ecological integrity and ecosystem services concepts.

The USFS can use existing data to quantify and measure ecological integrity through an ecosystem services approach and report outcomes as benefits 

Quantify and 

communicate the 

value of resources and 

impacts of management 

actions in terms of 

benefits to people.
31

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

to society (fig. 6). National management questions can track these impacts 

accordingly. This type of reporting framework is meant to be an iterative 

process—one that has the flexibility to both evaluate the efficacy of national 

program and management activities, as well as monitor and track trends as 

changes to human condition over time as a result of specified activities. This 

section outlines promising opportunities for the USFS to quantify and communicate about forests grasslands, and their management in terms of how they can 

affect people and communities. Of particular focus are:

• National assessments: Reporting big-picture national trends in forest and 

grassland conditions in terms of benefits to people to inform decisionmakers

• Inventory monitoring and assessment: Collecting data of USFS management outcomes to communicate progress toward objectives

• Performance measurement: Creating standardized ecosystem services 

metrics, integrative valuation models and decision-support tools to illustrate 

and enhance USFS benefits to people

National assessments—National assessment reports address trends in forest and 

grassland conditions and impacts to communities and people. Many of these assessments now implicitly require reporting on ecosystem services. Reports on items 

including forest health, fire risk, climate change, and resource production inform 

decisionmakers, the general public, and external stakeholders about how agency 

work provides real value to social and economic stability. This broad macro-level 

analysis necessitates comprehensive reporting indicators.

Figure 6—The U.S. Forest Service can join efforts to translate existing data about natural processes to human benefits via an 

ecosystem services approach. WTP = willingness to pay. (Adapted from Haines-Young and Potschin 2010.)

* Subset of biophysical structure or process providing the service.

Ecosystems and biodiversity

Biophysical

structure or 

process

e.g., vegetation

cover or net 

primary productivity

Function*

e.g., slow water

passage, biomass

Service

e.g., flood 

protection, 

products

Benefit(s)

contribution to 

health, safety, etc.

(econ) Value

(e.g., WTP for 

protection or 

products

Human well-being

(sociocultural context)
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Legal authority—The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 

of 1974 (16 U.S.C.§1642) requires the USFS to develop and review national assessments. The authority supplements the agency’s mission to manage forests for multiple uses and full productive capacity. It explicitly outlines that assessments of forests and grasslands contain elements of inventory, measurement, and prediction of 

how changing conditions and ecological stressors might affect future renewable resource production and ecosystem functionality. The report currently uses ecological 

process modeling from FIA data to directly project ecosystem service provisioning 

trends for renewable resources. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 states that managing renewable resources involves the agency 

“evaluating opportunities for improving their yield of tangible and intangible goods 

and services, along with estimates of investment costs and direct and indirect returns to the Federal Government” (16 U.S.C §1600). This language emphasizes the 

The U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Atlas of the United States combines state-of-the-art inventory and monitoring information with tree pollen counts, mill surveys, ownership records, bird observations, and more to 

tell stories about the value of our nation’s forests and the challenges they face. 
33

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

importance of measuring and reporting ecological conditions on the national scale 

while linking their implications to economic value, both direct and indirect. 

In 2011, the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology 

(PCAST) released a report entitled “Sustaining Human Capital; Protecting Society 

and the Economy” (PCAST 2011). This report pointed to the need for a quadrennial 

ecosystem services trends assessment to provide a synthesis of information about 

the impacts of climate change on ecosystem services and the challenges presented 

for sustaining those services. The report focuses on biodiversity and ecological 

integrity as a key underlying tenet of “environmental capital,” and directed the 

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Trends (BEST) assessment as a subcomponent 

to analyze how policy decisions affect ecosystem services and whether the federal 

government possesses the resource capacity to sustain them. 

Envisioning the future—National assessments are critical for demonstrating the 

human benefits inherent in healthy forests, and the role of the USFS in delivering 

these values. They are also important tools for tracking agency progress toward 

management goals. When they become publically available, the reports promote 

partnerships and collaboration with other government and nongovernment agencies 

by highlighting shared objectives. As the agency continues with national assessments of forests and grasslands resources, consideration of ecosystem services will 

make these reports more relevant by illustrating the important connections between 

sustaining our natural resources and human well-being.

Enhancing integrated and transparent information sharing is essential to creating 

greater opportunities for collaborative management, progress monitoring, and public 

communication. Sharing data in a way that supports collective decisionmaking necessitates an understanding of where it is stored, where it comes from, and what it implies. 

• Where it is stored: Explicitly monitoring ecosystem services at such a 

broad level will require guidance to dictate which agency or department 

will house the appropriate information. Currently, there is a lack of clarity 

on the location of certain datasets. The BEST assessment reported no gaps 

in data gathered at the national level; however, it did not specify where the 

data were being collected. 

• Where it comes from: National assessment reports on renewable energy 

could incorporate ecosystem services geospatial monitoring into existing production functions. This level of monitoring would help illuminate 

opportunities for watershed partnerships, biodiversity, and conservation 

banking, and carbon mitigation strategies in the face of rapidly changing 

land development and climate change patterns.

National assessments 

are critical for 

demonstrating the 

human benefits 

inherent in healthy 

forests, and the role of 

the USFS in delivering 

these values.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

• What it implies: An opportunity exists to use the BEST report to design 

and test indicators, selection criteria, and monitoring techniques to provide a consistent approach to ecosystem services analysis. Working with 

partner agencies to make the best use of national assessments and develop 

market and nonmarket valuation tools for translating and quantifying 

these services as social and economic impacts is another important step. 

Forthcoming valuation models have a high degree of potential for integration into existing economic functions and ecological simulations to report 

on the flows of vital services.

• How to enhance: Models could be applied to existing national reports to 

demonstrate the efficacy (or lack thereof) of forest management activities 

in terms of losses avoided. While all models are imperfect and economics 

cannot paint the whole picture, this would certainly help frame the agency’s 

work as valuable to ensuring sustainable development, both environmentally and economically.

USFS Inventory, monitoring, and assessment—

The IMA process presents a prime opportunity to improve the way the agency 

monitors, stores, and shares ecological data and better inform planning and 

management activities. There is momentum within the USFS toward coordinated 

information sharing and targeted inventories, which promote successful reporting 

on management results. The holistic inclusion of ecosystem services into the IMA 

reporting process would help the USFS accurately monitor ecological changes in 

real time and adjust agency priorities to enhance community benefit. The IMA 

team is currently restructuring management questions.

Legal authority—The Forest Service Manual 1900 Chapter 1940—Inventory, 

Monitoring, and Assessment Activities (2009) states “The objectives for managing inventory, monitoring, and assessment activities are to...support an adaptive land management process that includes social, economic, and ecological evaluations.” It also 

states that “Inventory, monitoring, and assessment activities shall: 1. Be coordinated 

“Many natural resources don’t have a market value until they’re gone.”

—Janet Ranganathan, 

Vice President for Science & Research, 

World Resources Institute
35

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

through a national integrated program planning process that addresses information 

needs related to all agency business requirements.” The IMA directives are intended 

to guide agency planning through an iterative and adaptive process that directs decisions to promote desired future states given existing environmental conditions.

IMA and ecosystem services—The IMA effort to restructure management questions provides a prime opportunity to build a consistent national framework for ecosystem services monitoring and management. Currently, land managers inventory 

vegetation, monitor water quality, and assess social and economic conditions near 

national forests and grasslands. The information serves the purposes of some USFS 

organizational units but is frequently gathered inconsistently across other agency 

units. This inhibits the agency’s ability to analyze trends and compare management 

methods. The IMA team has the challenging task of creating assessment questions 

that include generalizable criteria relevant for reporting at the national level while 

being specialized enough to reflect local ecological complexity.

This restructuring is intended to increase the USFS land stewards’ ability to 

respond to environmental stressors and trends while establishing a consistent method 

for internal data management that is linked laterally and vertically across jurisdictions 

and management scales. The IMA team’s most recent draft framework considers 

ecosystem services in five key components: biological diversity, ecosystem health 

and productivity, soil and water resources, infrastructure, and social and economic 

factors. The latter emphasizes the interrelated nature of ecological integrity and social 

and economic resilience. The ability to monitor and articulate ecosystem services is 

fundamental to making a shift in management to sustain these benefits.

Envisioning the future—Currently, the IMA process addresses ecosystem services 

with a discrete set of questions. For the IMA national management questions to fully adopt an ecosystem services approach, questions should be integrated throughout 

the key components. Furthermore, the questions should be altered to address how 

biophysical inputs get converted to social or economic impacts, who benefits, and 

how impacts are distributed. An ecosystem services approach to IMA questions 

can integrate stakeholder values into management decisions, quantify the impacts 

of these decisions on stakeholders, synthesize data from a variety of sources, and 

provide indicators to gauge performance and efficacy. The process can be used to 

promote outcome-oriented performance measures and improve alignment between 

objectives, accomplishments, and resource accountability. Results can be evaluated 

retroactively to determine which past decisions were most effective. The IMA could 

be refined in a way that aligns project or programmatic objectives with ecological 

and socioeconomic sustainability over time.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Performance measurement—

Performance measures are important for all federal agencies to justify budget 

allocations. The USFS uses performance measures to assess progress toward its 

mission “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests 

and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” An ecosystem 

services approach to performance measurement can enhance the scope and appropriateness of metrics and help the USFS discern whether agency activities deliver 

verifiable benefits to human health and well-being or measurable improvements 

to land conditions. An ecosystem services approach to performance measurement 

can help the USFS make progress toward clearly defined success indicators. More 

interdisciplinary, outcome-based performance metrics can also incentivize cooperative decisionmaking across resource programs. The legislation quoted below 

creates tremendous opportunities for applying ecosystem services to establish more 

economically indicative performance metrics.

Legal authority—The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 

2010 (GPRA 2011) requires the following three elements: 

1. Agencies are required to develop 5-year strategic plans that must contain a 

mission statement for the agency as well as “general goals and objectives, 

including outcome-oriented goals, for the major functions and operations of 

the agency.”

2. Agencies are required to prepare annual performance plans that establish 

“objective, quantifiable, and measureable” performance goals, and a set 

of “performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing progress 

toward each performance goal including, as appropriate, customer service, 

efficiency, output, and outcome indicators” for the applicable fiscal year, a 

brief description of how these goals are to be met, and a description of how 

these performance goals can be verified.

3. Agencies must prepare annual performance reports that review the agency’s 

success or failures in meeting its targeted performance goals. While the 

aforementioned agency (as pertains to the USFS) is the USDA, the USFS 

must report their accomplishments via standardized performance indicators 

up from the agency to the department level.

The Geospatial Accomplishment Reporting Project (GARP) Charter, July 2012 

(Wheldon and Hubbard 2013) emphasizes employing an integrated data warehouse to facilitate easy data updates at the field, district, forest, or regional level. 

An ecosystem 

services approach 

to performance 

measurement can 

help the USFS make 

progress toward 

clearly defined 

success indicators. 

More interdisciplinary, 

outcome-based 

performance metrics 

can also incentivize 

cooperative 

decisionmaking across 

resource programs.
37

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

The GARP strategy “utilizes existing resources and will develop low impact 

processes that support consolidating program management reporting and official 

geospatial accomplishment reporting in the Enterprise Data Warehouse.” This 

storage mechanism is intended to facilitate quick access through a user-friendly 

interface with an emphasis on geospatial reporting on accomplishments. There 

is now direct attention within the GARP strategy on indicators to illustrate the 

spatial distribution of impacts on stakeholders affected by forest management 

decisions. Connecting these indicators with standardized metrics will ensure that 

ecosystem services are reflected in GARP reporting.

Chapter 1410—Management Reviews—of the FSM (USDA FS 2007) clearly 

articulates the need for comprehensive performance measures and accomplishment reporting at deputy and program levels to be evaluated by deputy chiefs 

and national program directors. The FSM 1410 expresses the need for deputy 

areas and corresponding programs to implement performance measures to 

monitor accomplishments. It also explicitly requires national program directors 

to respond when objectives are not fully achieved. Forest Service programs 

can ensure ecosystem services delivery by providing accurate and appropriate 

metrics to assess program achievements against objectives. The manual reads: 

“Deputy Chiefs must ensure that...coordination occurs within their staff area 

to ensure consistent interpretation, collection, and reporting of accomplishment data and performance measures...Washington Office staff directors are 

responsible for monitoring program performance, conducting reviews to evaluate 

whether accomplishment data meets performance measure definitions, system 

of record standards, and reporting protocols...and proposing adjustments to the 

Deputy Chief where oversight reviews suggest that national performance measures are hindering program delivery and attainment of their agency mission.”

Performance Metrics on the Tongass National Forest: a Closer Look

Southeast Alaska salmon and trout populations contribute to over $986 million of regional economic activity and 10 percent of regional jobs (commercial, recreational, personal) (TCW Economics 2010). Tying these provisioning 

ecosystem services to more broadly reflect economic opportunities could help 

justify conserving habitats and restoring affected streams and riparian areas 

while managing to minimize climate change impacts.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

USFS-wide performance measurement and reporting—

National reporting—The USFS has always recognized the significance of national 

performance measures as a critical way of evaluating the agency’s progress toward 

reaching accomplishments. This process demonstrates accountability while highlighting key successes and challenges. A U.S. General Accounting Office testimony 

before the House Appropriations Committee (Hill 2000) identified the USFS as an 

agency in need of more accountability with appropriated funds. Of particular note 

was the need to link budget allocation criteria, forest plans, and performance measures to strategic objectives. Two major changes resulted from this insight: (1) the 

USFS consolidated its budget structure to form key objectives and integrate goals 

with strategies (such as promoting ecosystem services), and (2) the USFS decided to 

justify future fiscal budgets on the basis of performance measures linked to strategies and outcomes rather than measures linked to specific resources. 

Additionally, the OMB is interested in linking outcome-oriented metrics to 

performance and accountability through a more consistent and explicit ecosystem 

services-based economic analysis for all federal agencies, and its efforts to guide 

these agencies has resulted in a number of new assessment frameworks. It lays out 

a method for more robust cost-benefit analysis taking into account environmental 

impacts on public health and social well-being in a memorandum revising Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (OMB 2003). Consistency 

among these frameworks will be essential in creating an effective, standardized 

system for evaluating efficiencies in budgetary allocations—if the Forest Service 

President’s Council on Environmental Quality Delivers Final Principles, 

Requirements, and Guidelines (PRG) for All Federal Natural Resource 

Management Agencies

The updated 2015 PRG will require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 

develop a consistent departmentwide analysis for water-resource development projects over $20 million. Since 1983, a narrow economic cost-benefit 

assessment was required for evaluating and selecting all major Army Corps of 

Engineers and Natural Resources Conservation Services water projects, from 

navigation to storm resilience, wetland restoration, and flood prevention. That 

assessment has been broadened to all federal natural resource management 

agencies and must meet the following federal objectives:

As the 2012 planning rule already meets these general objectives, application of the PRG is expected to be limited to mostly third-party infrastructure 

projects above the financial threshold on National Forest System land.
39

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

wishes to retain the resources necessary to implement its key strategies to achieve 

desirable outcomes, it must quantify and communicate programmatic success in 

a way that will resonate with program evaluators charged with a diverse portfolio 

of expenditures.

National performance measures are currently embedded within the agency’s 

2015–2020 strategic plan. The plan features specific objectives such as strengthening communities, conserving open space, and exchanging natural resource 

expertise. Strategic components embedded in the fiscal year 2016 budget 

include furnishing abundant clean water; resisting damage from fire, insects, 

and disease; and sustaining a strong productive capacity. The agency explicitly 

identifies the need to “deliver all the social, economic and ecological values and 

benefits that Americans want and need, both now and for generations to come” 

(USDA FS 2015a).

Deputy areas and program-level reporting—Under national directives, USFS 

deputy areas began to align their own performance measures to meet overarching agencywide strategies. Specifically, the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill provided new 

language on how the S&PF deputy area would identify priority areas for multipartner investments designed to incorporate integrated national, regional, and 

state forest management goals (defined as national S&PF objectives) in responding to prioritized landscape- and outcome-based planning.1 These three objective 

areas (conserving and managing forests for multiple values, protecting forests 

from threats, and enhancing public benefits from trees) all implicitly emphasize 

ecosystem services as a justification and standard to which accomplishments 

could be tracked. Within the NFS, performance is evaluated through ecological 

indicators entered into agencywide monitoring systems (e.g., watershed improvement tracking).

There is an opportunity for each program area to work with the Strategic Planning and Budget Analysis Office to update performance measures to focus on the 

impact or result, and ecosystem service outcomes, benefits, and values of activities 

rather than outputs (e.g., volume timber, acres treated). Currently, S&PF programs 

(i.e., Forest Stewardship, Forest Legacy, Community Forestry, Urban and Community Forestry) and NFS programs (i.e., Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration) 

are tasked with monitoring and reporting outcomes focused on improved social 

and economic conditions. Metrics include numbers of stakeholders engaged, the 

performance of conservation activities on private lands, and spatial or tabular 

1 The U.S. Farm Bill was recently reauthorized in 2014, and builds on the original bill 

empowering actions to “enable USDA to further expand markets for agricultural products 

at home and abroad, strengthen conservation efforts, create new opportunities for local and 

regional food systems and grow the bio-based economy” (USDA 2015b). 
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

tracking of ecological improvements via the Stewardship Mapping and Reporting Tool. Applying new metrics through an ecosystem services lens (e.g., carbon 

sequestered, phosphorus load avoidance) could increase market values for contracts 

and encourage stewardship of private lands. Additionally, more reflective geospatial 

reporting of ecological and economic outcomes could inform where future dollars 

could be invested for the greatest net returns.

Forest and project-level reporting—Through an annual monitoring and evaluation 

report, every national forest must evaluate and report on forest plan accomplishments on a statewide basis. Reports are tailored to specific state needs and contain 

quantitative and qualitative data garnered through IMA management questions. At 

the national forest level, forest stakeholders and regional land managers are beginning to revise performance measures to reflect the economic impacts of activities.

Envisioning the future—The USFS has an opportunity to integrate ecosystem 

services goals throughout the agency through targeted inventories, transparent 

and accessible data management, and performance measurement. The USFS can 

monitor national objectives using performance metrics that characterize ecosystem 

services outcomes beyond species delisted or habitat acres restored. This will help 

the agency demonstrate progress toward its mission, justify how budget allocations 

to the USFS promote human well-being, and communicate the economic value of 

the agency to the public. Additionally, quantifying and demonstrating the ecosystem service benefits delivered through cooperative assistance programs or stewardship contracts can encourage greater participation by private landowners. Use 

of newly developing spatial databases, decision-support tools, and models linking 

ecological process to economic valuation data (via transfer values and production 

Case Study

The state of Florida’s annual monitoring and evaluation report includes a 

component entitled “Sustainable Multiple Forest and Range Benefits.” Within 

this category, monitoring questions regarding recreation site accessibility, 

trail maintenance, wilderness protection, forest product harvest, and socioeconomic contribution are addressed to gauge the effectiveness of national forests 

in meeting this goal. Ecosystem services could extend beyond recreation and 

provisioning to include regulating and supporting services such as carbon 

sequestration and water-quality benefits.
41

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

functions) will prove essential in quantifying and reporting outcomes and progress 

toward goals. Quantification and communication of the foundational environmental 

benefits necessary to support communities—clean water, clean air, processing of 

material, and buffering of natural catastrophic disasters—are essential to telling the 

story of how NFS lands can serve people, thereby emphasizing the relevance of the 

agency. This concept has added value in challenging program leaders to reconsider 

how objectives might be reprioritized. These achievements will be essential in communicating the value associated with the agency’s increasing emphasis on budget 

consolidation (e.g., integrated resource restoration).

Investment in Ecosystem Services

Connect providers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services—

The cross-boundary nature of ecosystem services delivery processes makes connecting providers and beneficiaries of these services a challenge. Political and geographic 

boundaries can create artificial barriers that hinder consideration of ecosystem 

service benefits in land management and land use decisions. Benefits provided by 

green infrastructure and sustainable natural resource management practices are 

often poorly understood or not captured in market values. There are many ways to 

overcome these barriers, from informal communications/collaboration to investment 

partnerships, environmental markets, or other incentive-based approaches.

This section highlights opportunities for the USFS to build relationships 

between providers and beneficiaries and encourage full or partial financial investment from the beneficiaries. Specifically, this section covers the USFS’s approach 

to connecting providers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services through incentives, 

damage mitigation, investment partnerships, and environmental markets. 

Incentives: The USFS provides incentives for ecosystem service delivery from private landowners through grants, financial assistance, and stewardship agreements. 

Damage mitigation: The USFS provides ecosystem services for public benefit. 

Damages to USFS land and property affects the ability of the USFS to provide ecosystem services. The agency quantifies and values these damages to ecosystem services. 

Investment partnerships: The USFS facilitates connections between actors with 

shared risks and benefits by building partnerships where beneficiaries can invest in 

natural resource management for sustained ecosystem services. 

Environmental markets: The USFS facilitates markets for ecosystem services by 

developing infrastructure for enabling transactions between ecosystem services 

providers and beneficiaries. 

Quantification and 

communication of 

the foundational 

environmental benefits 

necessary to support 

communities—clean 

water, clean air, 

processing of material, 

and buffering of 

natural catastrophic 

disasters—are essential 

to telling the story of 

how NFS lands can 

serve people, thereby 

emphasizing the 

relevance of the agency. 
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Incentives—

Cooperative assistance—The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 

USC 41), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public 

Law 110-246), authorizes the USFS to provide financial, technical, educational, 

and related assistance to state foresters, extension agents, public agencies, private 

landowners, forest resource operators, vendors, tribal organizations, and other 

managers. This assistance is provided in exchange for the protection and maintenance of forest land and forested wildlife habitat and “the multiple values and uses 

that depend on such lands.” Included in this authority is the ability to offer private 

landowners financial incentives for stewardship actions (table 1). These incentives 

promote the voluntary delivery of ecosystem services from private lands for public 

benefits. Clearly articulating the ecosystem services benefits provided by these 

incentives could encourage increases in dedicated funding and future impact for 

these programs. 

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Connects Providers and Beneficiaries of 

Ecosystem Services

• The USFS and the Denver Water Board signed a memorandum of 

understanding in which each committed $16 million for improved forest restoration work in Denver’s municipal watershed to avoid damage 

to water quality caused by large wildfires. 

• In 2012, the city of Flagstaff, Arizona, passed a bond measure committing $10 million for use on the Coconino National Forest, Arizona 

state lands, and city parcels for forest thinning treatments to reduce 

severe wildfire and subsequent flooding risk in Flagstaff. 

• The USFS engages in a collaborative effort with the Eugene Water 

and Electric Board to design a voluntary payment incentive program 

that protects high-quality riparian areas on private lands to benefit the 

drinking water supply in Eugene, Oregon.

• In 2013 alone, the USFS closed 350 damage assessment claims cases 

for over $146 million. Over $100 million of this total was generated 

from fire damages; $60 million of which was returned directly to 

national forests for resource damage mitigation. There were nine large 

settlements in 2013 related to fire mitigation ranging from $1.25 to 

$45 million in recovered costs. 
43

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Other potential opportunities for USFS to use an ecosystem services approach 

to leverage cooperative assistance include: 

• Using an assessment of ecosystem services to inform the selection of target 

areas and estimation of the potential values of individual projects. This 

would require national- and project-scale modeling as well as local discussions regarding priority ecosystem values. 

• Incorporating ecosystem services values into USFS appraisal and acquisition 

standards and procedures. This could make fair market value estimates more 

representative of social and ecological values beyond highest and best use 

for development purposes. Increased property value appraisals would further 

incentivize the sale of conservation easements and fee-simple parcels.

Stewardship contracts—Stewardship contracts leverage community relationships 

to help the USFS meet restoration goals and carry out ecosystem management projects. In current policy, stewardship contracts allow the trade of goods for services 

in an integrated resource contract (IRC). Here, a local operator is compensated 

for completing ecological restoration activities on NFS land by capitalizing on the 

value of forest products extracted from the treated areas (Roessing et al. 2014). The 

financial cost of these services is offset by the value of products removed. Services 

can include thinning, removing brush, watershed and habitat maintenance, weed 

Table 1—Examples of financial incentive programs for stewardship actions

Program Description Ecosystem services language

Forest Stewardship 

Program (FSP)

Financial and technical 

incentives to nonindustrial 

private landowners for longterm stewardship and active 

management.

The FSP invests in practices that maintain and enhance 

the productivity of the full suite of forest resources. The 

FSP ensures that financed activities, “meet future public 

demand for all forest resources and the environmental 

benefits that result.”

Forest Legacy Program Purchasing easements on forests 

with significant environmental 

values threatened by conversion. 

Environmental values include, “scenic, cultural, fish, 

wildlife, and recreational resources, riparian areas, and 

other ecological values.” Easements allow recreation 

and forest management. 

Community Forestry 

and Open Space 

Conservation

Grants for fee-simple acquisition 

of threatened private forests to 

provide community benefits. 

Acquisitions provide “economic benefits through 

sustainable forest management; environmental benefits, 

including clean water and wildlife habitat;” and benefits 

from education and recreation. 

National Urban and 

Community Forestry 

Assistance

Financial assistance through 

matching grants for urban and 

community forestry projects. 

Projects include tree planting, wood utilization, open 

space programs, energy conservation for air quality 

benefits, and demonstration projects to illustrate the 

benefits of urban forest cover.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

control, soil productivity, and prescribed fire. The USFS evaluates which operator 

(federal, municipal, private, or nonprofit) will deliver the “best value” in terms of 

final ecosystem outcomes rather than by bid price for forest products (fig. 7) (USDA 

FS 2014b). The quality of a proposal, expertise and past performance of the contractor, and price are also factors (USDA FS 2009).

Section 323 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 

§2104) established the authority to implement stewardship contracts for land management and community outreach. The authority expired in 2013 and was renewed 

by the 2014 U.S. Farm Bill that permanently authorized USFS stewardship contracting (FSM 2400; FSH 2409.19). The 2014 authorization does not place a restriction 

on the number of acres that can be included in a stewardship contract. Stewardship 

contracts quickly and efficiently connect the USFS to communities through shared 

work and investment. Communities receive ecosystem service benefits from USFS 

and contractor activities, often in the form of job creation and employment stability. 

Stewardship contracting represents a significant opportunity for the USFS to highlight ecosystem services and community outcomes from activities on NFS lands. 

The agency could use stewardship projects as case studies for developing ecosystem 

services metrics and creating best practices for community collaboration.

Damage mitigation on USFS lands—

The USFS provides ecosystem services to public beneficiaries through management 

of agency resources. When these resources are negatively affected, their ability to 

function and deliver benefits also suffers. Damage assessments are evaluations of 

impacts to property or resources on NFS lands resulting from natural or humancaused disasters and unlawful activity. They provide an opportunity to account for 

impacts on ecosystem services delivered from USFS land to public beneficiaries. 

In fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Forest Service awarded 195 stewardship contracts 

and agreements covering 171,767 acres of forest and grassland. Accomplishments include:

• 3,391 acres of established forest vegetation 

• 44 miles of enhanced stream habitat 

• 1,346,470 CCF* of timber sold

• 72,578 acres of restored or improved wildlife habitat

Expressing the outcomes of these contracts in terms of ecosystem services 

would enhance our understanding about project impacts. 

* CCF = 100 cubic feet.
45

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

50k

100k

150k

200k

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Acres treated

(thousand acres)

Fiscal year

0k

0 250 500 1,000 Miles

N

Acres treated nationwide through stewardship contracts

and agreements, fiscal years 1999 to 2013

< 1,000 ac

1,000 - 2,000 ac

2,000 - 3,000 ac

> 3,000 ac

No treatment

Acres treated in fiscal year 2013

Figure 7—Acres treated in 2013 through U.S. Forest Service stewardship contracts.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

The USFS can use them to assess damages to agency resources from management 

decisions or the actions of outside entities. The USFS can also be held accountable 

to other parties for impacts of agency activities on resources outside NFS boundaries. Damage assessments can also be conducted without assigning fault (see the 

damage assessment example text box on p. 47). 

USFS damage assessments—There are several circumstances for which damage 

assessments are conducted by the USFS, including:

• Development impacts: Natural resource impacts from construction or 

development (e.g., sedimentation/erosion control, nutrient leaching, interrupted scenic views)

• Property impacts: Theft, depredation, or damage of USFS property, facilities, or infrastructure (e.g., railroad fires, timber theft, growing of illegal 

crops, arson, timber sale accidents, vehicle theft, power line damage, campfire damages) 

• Cultural impacts: Damages to archeological or cultural resources, sites, 

or property

Damage assessments can result in claims after an accident, restoration recommendations after a natural disaster, or criminal charges after theft or arson. Damages are typically assessed using a combination of methods, including accounting 

for the appraised value of resource rehabilitation, and the lost value of the standing 

resource (based on resale value or “cost price”). These standing resources typically 

include costs incurred by the USFS and market value for timber, infrastructure, 

vehicles or property, and other established vegetation.

Legal authority—At the federal level, damage assessments are conducted using 

Natural Resource Damage (NRD) liability provisions guided by the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Oil 

Pollution Act (OPA), and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). Liability 

calculations in a NRD assessment include costs of restoring the resource to baseline conditions, compensation for ”interim losses” pending full restoration, and the 

reasonable cost of the damage assessments itself (Scarlett and Boyd 2011). Through 

these three approaches, OPA, CERCLA, and NMSA provide a framework for valuation beyond market value and resource development. The NRD framework provides 

an opportunity for USFS to account for the values of nonmarket ecosystem services.

Certain authorities allow the USFS to assess damages occurring on or affecting the NFS (table 2). Although calculating damage costs according to impacts on 

ecosystem services values and ecological function is not expressly authorized or 
47

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

prohibited, using an ecosystem services approach in damage assessments can help 

the USFS gain a more accurate and complete picture of natural resource impacts 

from planned or implemented management activities. Damage assessments could 

then account for a broader suite of values, such as habitat, water filtration, carbon 

sequestration, disaster mitigation, aesthetics, and recreational values.

Early examples—Although most damage assessments do not fully account for the 

value of ecosystem services delivered from the impacted resource, a few landmark examples set precedent for an ecosystem services approach to damage assessment claims:

1. U.S. vs. Scarry (unpublished, 9th cir. 1989): Under a criminal violation for 

timber theft, the USFS may apply the fair market value of the stolen timber at point of delivery and the resource damages value. The authority to 

charge for resource damages is in Title 18, U.S Code 1361. The court ruled 

that resource damages caused by the violation would include “damages to 

visual, silvicultural, wildlife, archaeological, soils, hydraulic, and recreational resources, and so forth.... These values may be based on the ‘value 

of the live trees in terms of their contribution to the forest ecosystem’” (18 

USC 641; 18 USC 1361). 

Damage Assessment Example

The Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and the Pawnee National 

Grassland completed a flood impact assessment report to determine natural 

resource, infrastructure, recreation, and economic damages from heavy and 

sustained rain over multiple days in September 2013. The report revealed that 

over 600,000 acres were affected. After the heavy rain, the forest supervisor 

established a flood impact assessment team to rapidly assess damage and 

imminent risk to facilities and infrastructure caused by the flooding. Preliminary estimated total costs for infrastructure and facilities:

Roads $10,609,025 

Bridges $2,784,954 

Trail $425,693 

Facilities $3,025,031 

Estimated total costs $16,844,703

These estimates could be enhanced by addressing impacts to habitat, 

scenic views, recreation/tourism, hydrologic function, water quality, and 

other ecosystem services.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Table 2—Legal partnership tools

Instruments Authorization Limitations/guidelines

Participating agreements can be used for 

partnerships involving shared costs/benefits 

related to pollution abatement, job training, 

publication of forest history materials, 

interpretive associations, forest protection, 

prescribed fire, watershed restoration and 

enhancement (public or private lands), and 

resource advisory committees.

Cooperative Funds 

and Deposits Act of 

December 12, 1975

Wyden Amendment

Does not apply to other federal agencies. 

Total resources from the partner must be at 

least 20 percent of what is required.

Must benefit natural or cultural resources 

within a watershed on National Forest 

System lands. Project can involve public or 

private lands.

Challenge cost share agreements apply 

to partnerships with shared costs/

benefits when U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) and its cooperator agree to 

develop and execute a project that 

enhances existing USFS activities.

Interior and Related 

Appropriations Act of 

1992

Partners must receive equal qualitative 

benefit from the project and contribute 

at least 20 percent of project resources. 

Funds cannot be sourced from other 

federal agencies.

Collection agreements are implemented by 

the USFS to perform a service or provide 

goods for a cooperator that is not a federal 

agency. These allow the USFS to accept 

money from a nonfederal party to carry out 

a purpose authorized by law.

Cooperative Funds Act 

of June 30, 1914

Granger-Thye Act of 

April 24, 1950

Contributions must be voluntary and can 

cover all or part of the cost of the work. 

Work must benefit an existing USFS 

program. Acceptance of funds must not be 

conditional upon endorsement.

Some public benefit must result from 

accomplishing the work. Agreements 

must not be initiated to supplement USFS 

crews or equipment. The USFS cannot 

accept services as payment and cannot 

provide endorsements.

Interagency agreements clarify the 

expenditures or services exchanged when 

the USFS performs a service or provides a 

good for a federal agency partner.

The Economy Act of 

June 30, 1932

The Service First 

Authority

The transaction must be in the best 

interest of the U.S. public, and the 

agency must not be able to procure the 

goods or services at a similar cost or 

effort from a commercial enterprise. An 

Economy Act determination and finding 

letter is required.

USFS, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Park Service, and Fish and 

Wildlife Service can share facilities, 

services, and employees to improve 

customer services and enhance work 

accomplished between federal agencies.
49

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

2. The Storrie Fire: In August of 2000, the 52,000-acre Storrie Fire was 

started by Union Pacific Railroad crews working on a rail line, who failed 

to take fire prevention precautions. The fire spread through 22,000 acres 

of USFS land on the Plumas National Forest and generated $22 million in 

suppression costs. The fire destroyed wildlife habitat including old-growth 

forests and designated wilderness areas. Union Pacific was found responsible for the full costs of restoration, suppression, lost timber value, and “the 

loss of public scenery and recreation and habitat and wildlife.” This $102 

million settlement includes compensation above and beyond the fair market 

value of destroyed timber or other tangible resources. It includes compensation for unique aspects of the forest and restoration of ecological balance. 

3. The PG&E Fire: The USFS reached a settlement with Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co. (PG&E) for $14.75 million over a 1999 fire in California. The 

fire burned 11,725 acres, including 3,866 acres of NFS lands. The fire, 

caused by a ponderosa pine on PG&E land falling on a PG&E power line, 

resulted in extensive damage to ecological habitat and timber value on NFS 

land. The funds were directed to the Plumas and Tahoe National Forests, 

and included $4.2 million for fire suppression costs and $10.55 million to 

fund natural resource restoration. 

Envisioning the future—Incorporating the public value of ecosystem services benefits into damage assessments from impacts to USFS resources is a financial and 

standard-setting opportunity for the agency. Policy and methodology shifts will allow 

financial compensation from damages to support restoration of the Forest Service’s 

ability to provide ecosystem services to beneficiaries. For example, when scientists 

measured the “loss of passive values arising from injuries to natural resources,” caused 

by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska using a contingent valuation method, they 

calculated a minimum of $2.8 billion in additional compensation owed to the state of 

“It’s an important development...to have courts saying decisions 

aren’t limited to the value of timber. A calculation is now allowed to 

look at the value of wildlife and the ecosystem. It seems to me that’s 

the correct view, otherwise it’s like saying there’s no consequence to 

someone burning land that didn’t have salable timber.”

—Sean Hecht, Executive Director

UCLA Environmental Law Center
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Alaska (Carson et al. 2003). Incorporating ecosystem services values into appraisal 

and acquisition standards and procedures would increase the fair market value of parcels and further incentivize easements. Mitigation strategies, NRD assessments, and 

environmental penalties can steer funds within a particular ecosystem into a common 

pool for investment in priority ecosystem services protection and restoration.

Investment partnerships—

This section focuses on partnerships that involve an exchange of financial resources 

between providers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services. This subset of partnerships represents the most specific opportunity to promote investments for the USFS 

to serve people and ecosystems. In many of the partnerships presented in this section, the USFS and collaborating entities both serve as providers and beneficiaries 

of ecosystem services. 

Legal authority—A combination of legislative authorities and leadership guidance 

communicates the agency’s intention to facilitate collaborative ecosystem services 

transactions that connect providers and beneficiaries. One guidance directive is the 

2011 Public-Private Partnership (PPP) strategy. The PPP invites partners to share 

directly in the care and benefits delivered from healthy landscapes; they illustrate 

how the USFS can expand public appreciation for ecosystem services benefit.

The USFS is working to clarify policies and align internal structures to 

encourage institutional partnerships. Many USFS partnerships have evolved 

beyond traditional nonprofit organizations to include entities such as private 

companies and local governments. When sharing responsibilities, financial 

resources are often exchanged to accomplish work. There are existing authorities 

for the USFS to exchange funds and services with private entities (table 2). These 

authorities establish instruments for the USFS to accept money from partners or 

share investments. These instruments include participating agreements, challenge cost-share agreements, collection agreements, and interagency agreements 

(USDA FS 2012b). However, direct relationships with industry and for-profit 

organizations if not handled appropriately may raise endorsement concerns and 

can cause uncertainty, hindering partnership development and project timelines. 

For instance, the agency developed guidance that dictates it does not accept 

”directed” funds from private partners. The agency is currently developing more 

explicit ethical guidance and building on existing instruments for collaboration 

to address potential concerns and uncertainties from PPPs (Bedell-Loucks 2014). 

While USFS is not specifically prohibited by partnership authorities from receiving private funds, working through nonprofit intermediary partners can often 

expedite projects and avoid endorsement concerns.
51

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

The agency works with multiple nonprofit organizations whose missions are 

aligned with agency objectives. National-level partners such as the National Fish and 

Wildlife Federation (NFWF), the Nature Conservancy, the Arbor Day Foundation, 

the American Forest Foundation, the Pinchot Institute, the National Environmental 

Education Foundation (NEEF), and the National Forest Foundation (NFF) are integral to the agency’s ability to leverage private funds and accomplish goals. The NFF, 

NFWF, and NEEF can accept funds for direct investment in USFS work. The NFF 

has specific congressional authority to do so (NFF and USDA FS 2005). For instance, 

The Carbon Capital Fund is managed by the NFF and financed by corporations to 

support restoration projects on national forests in exchange for carbon offsets.

Early examples—The USFS partnerships benefit the public interest by providing 

ecosystem services from collaborative management or outreach activities. There are 

multiple ways to organize partnerships that connect providers and beneficiaries of 

ecosystem services. Table 3 presents examples of partnership structures where USFS 

facilitates investments by beneficiaries of ecosystem services to providers of those 

services for continued delivery. 

Table 3—U.S. Forest Service (USFS) ecosystem services partnership opportunities and examples 

Who pays Motivation Funding tools Work funded Example 

Utilities Cost avoidance 

Risk mitigation 

• Cooperative investments 

and projects

• Vegetation management adjacent 

to transmission rights of way 

• Utility infrastructure upkeep 

• Reduce hazardous fuels 

• Joint planning and research 

USFS and Western 

utilities group 

City residents 

municipal 

water users 

Clean and 

consistent 

drinking water 

supply 

• Voluntary bond vote 

• Mandatory water rate 

changes

• Partner contributions 

to nonprofit managed 

community fund 

• Targeted land conservation

• Sustainable forest management 

activities 

• Habitat restoration 

• Watershed reforestation 

Watershed Investment 

Partnerships in Santa Fe, 

NM; Denver, CO; and 

Flagstaff, AZ

Companies

Nonprofit 

partners 

Corporate 

Sustainability 

Mission-related 

investing

• Partner contributions 

to nonprofit managed 

community fund

• Healthy fish and wildlife habitat 

• Sediment detention basin 

construction 

• Rehabilitate alluvial fans 

• Filling deep gullies 

Coca-Cola® and National 

Forest Foundation 

National Watershed 

Replenishment Initiative

Consumers 

Tourists 

Regional resilience 

and community 

development 

• Voluntary point of sale 

donations coordinated 

by industry 

• Forest conservation 

• Forest restoration 

• Invasive species removal 

• Trail maintenance 

The Ski Conservation 

Fund

Note: Use of a trade or firm name in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of 

any product or service.

Source: USDA FS 2014a, 2016.
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Envisioning the future—Many of the collaborations highlighted in table 3 were 

started by partner organizations. Corporations, utility companies, citizens, and 

community organizations are accustomed to institutional collaboration. One approach for facilitating connections between providers and beneficiaries of ecosystem services is to define and pursue additional model partnerships. The USFS has 

an opportunity to proactively pursue shared work agreements for ecosystem service provision to deliver shared ecosystem services values. Continued engagement 

and strengthening relationships with partners across all levels of the agency will 

be instrumental in developing a shared vision of land and resource stewardship.

Environmental markets—

Our nation’s rivers, forests, grasslands, mountains, and wetlands provide a network of 

natural resources that benefit people. However, the values of the ecosystem services 

they provide, such as water filtration, pollutant sequestration, and weather protection, 

are infrequently incorporated into natural resource management decisions. Because 

it is challenging to quantify and assign monetary values to these services, these 

services are consistently undervalued. This results in the overuse of and stress on our 

natural infrastructure. Environmental markets can incentivize the preservation of 

these ecosystems and the continued delivery of benefit to people (Duraiappah 2006).

Introduction to environmental markets2—The USDA Office of Environmental 

Markets presents environmental markets as, “an innovative policy approach to 

increasing funding for environmental conservation and...a complement to traditional conservation programs” (USDA 2015a). In an ecosystem services market, transactions occur between actors interested in purchasing an ecosystem service and 

actors with dominion over the improved condition of an ecosystem service. There 

are currently pilot market programs and active established markets for carbon and 

other greenhouse gasses, water quality, wetlands, and habitats. These markets are 

designed to provide a cost-effective approach to improved natural resource management and increased options for conservation actions on private lands.

2 Formal markets with open trading between buyers and sellers are either (1) under a 

regulatory cap or floor on the level of ecosystem services to be provided or (2) voluntary. 

Regulatory ecosystem markets are established through legislation that creates demand 

for a particular ecosystem service by setting a “cap” on the damage to, or investment in, 

an ecosystem service. The users of the service, or at least the people who are responsible 

for diminishing that service, respond either by complying directly or trading with others 

who are able to meet the regulation at lower cost. Buyers are defined by legislation, but 

are usually private-sector companies or other institutions. Sellers may also be companies 

or other entities that legislation allows to be seller and who are going beyond regulatory 

requirements. Voluntary markets also exist, as in the case of most carbon emission trading 

in the United States. For example, companies or organizations seeking to reduce their 

carbon footprints can be motivated to engage in the voluntary market to enhance their 

brands, to anticipate emerging regulation, or in response to stakeholder pressure. Voluntary 

exchanges are also a category of private payments (Forest Trends et al. 2008).

Our nation’s rivers, 

forests, grasslands, 

mountains, and 

wetlands provide a 

network of natural 

resources that 

benefit people.
53

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Greenhouse gas markets—In carbon markets, supply and demand forces establish 

a price for tons of carbon emissions. Markets are regulated by emission trading 

schemes, which set rules that govern market transactions. Cap-and-trade is a common trading scheme for carbon and other greenhouse gasses (Gledhill et al. 2008). 

Similar to water quality markets, a regulator sets a cap on emissions from a set 

group of emitting agents. The regulator then assigns a certain number of allowances 

across the group of emitters. The emitters, or market participants, can then flexibly 

meet their targets through internal emissions reductions or through purchasing allowances in the market. Project-based offsets is another common trading tool. Here, 

third-party project developers can generate ”offset” credits through proactive activities to sequester or mitigate greenhouse gasses below a baseline target. The emissions reductions below the target baseline can be sold in the regulated markets or in 

voluntary transactions.

Water quality markets—In watersheds across the United States, markets for 

nutrients, temperature, and sediment load reductions are developing to meet regional water quality goals. In a typical water quality trading market, a regulatory 

agency will create demand for water quality credits by imposing a maximum limit 

or ”cap” on annual discharge of various pollutants in a watershed (Willamette 

Partnership et al. 2012). Discharge allowances equal to the cap are allocated 

among regulated discharging firms operating in the watershed. If a firm’s discharge exceeds its annual allowance, it can pay a fine, reduce its discharges, or 

purchase allowances from another firm to offset this amount. Firms discharging less than their allowance can sell their polluting allowances as water quality 

credits (Ribaudo et al. 2008). The market enables allowances to be traded for a 

cost-efficient approach to regulating pollutants at a landscape scale (Willamette 

Partnership et al. 2015).

Wetland mitigation markets—Mitigation banks are a tool that incentivize maintenance of functioning coastal or freshwater wetlands and streams. Wetland mitigation banking markets were established to aid compliance with Section 404 of 

The Pacific Northwest Region is working with the Willamette Partnership and 

Defenders of Wildlife to develop the Counting on the Environment project, 

which established an integrated, functions-based protocol for calculating 

biodiversity ecosystem services provided by the restoration of wetlands, salmonid habitat, and prairie. With habitat metric development on private farm 

and forested lands finalized in 2009, this protocol is being used as a national 

model for ecosystem services markets.
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

the Clean Water Act, which requires compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. A mitigation bank is an aquatic resource area that has 

been restored, established, enhanced, or preserved to provide compensation for 

those impacts to aquatic resources permitted under Section 404 or a similar state 

or local regulation (USEPA 2015). A mitigation bank may be created through formal agreement between a regulatory agency and a government agency, corporation, nonprofit organization, or other entity. The quantity of compensatory mitigation credits generated by activities determines the value of a mitigation bank 

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA 2008). Credits are measures of restored, 

established, enhanced, or preserved ecological function. The mitigation banks can 

use the credits to mitigate for internal impacts, or sell credits to external agents 

responsible for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. Mitigation banks are, 

“a form of ‘third-party’ compensatory mitigation, in which the responsibility for 

compensatory mitigation implementation and success is assumed by a party other 

than the permittee” (USEPA 2015).

Habitat markets—The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §1531—1544) incentivizes landowners and managers to improve ecosystem services on their lands by 

providing habitat for endangered and threatened species conservation. In habitat 

markets, landowners can provide natural resource values by conserving or managing parcels of land (conservation banks) in perpetuity for the benefit of a specified listed species whose habitat has been affected on another site (Jones 2003). 

Conservation banks deliver habitat of equal or greater value as impacts occurring 

in other sites to the same habitat types. Those who impact the habitat of the listed 

species can mitigate this impact by purchasing credits from a conservation bank. A 

conservation bank can be created by purchasing habitat, protecting habitat, restoring or enhancing disturbed habitat, creating new habitat, or managing habitat for 

additional values (USFWS 2012).

These markets can help achieve conservation goals when implemented 

in conjunction with other complementary approaches to sustainable natural 

resource management. Other tools such as subsidies, protection programs, 

public lands management, eco-labeling, and tax incentives are equally critical 

to solving environmental challenges (Ecosystem Marketplace 2013). Markets 

can also help incentivize conservation actions by those capable of providing 

the most ecosystem services at the most efficient cost. Environmental markets 

are designed for beneficiaries of ecosystem services to remunerate providers of 

ecosystem services to maintain a sustainable and healthy balance of conservation and impact. 
55

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

USFS and environmental markets—Each deputy area of the USFS supports 

market approaches to sustainable forest management primarily by facilitating infrastructure for market transactions, and connecting providers and beneficiaries of 

forest-based ecosystem services. 

• State and Private Forestry: As a provider of technical and financial assistance to states, tribes, communities, and nonindustrial private landowners, the USFS supports the creation of a flexible but secure market-enabling 

infrastructure. The agency generates demand for ecosystem services by 

offering incentives for conservation actions on private lands. The agency can 

also consider allowing landowners enrolled in USFS conservation protection 

programs to leverage federal funding to reduce barriers to market entry.

• Research and development: The USFS plays a role in demonstrating 

sound science for market metrics and methodologies through pilot 

projects and research on forest land. For the USFS to effectively support 

market development, the agency can look at essential ecosystem service 

market components and explore opportunities to provide market clarity 

and scientific guidance.

• National Forest System: It is possible for the USFS to consider a role as 

a buyer of ecosystem services in environmental markets. Environmental 

markets can allow the USFS to efficiently compensate for environmental impacts the agency brings to the landscape. In addition to providing 

ecosystem services from positive land management on NFS units, USFS 

management also generates impacts to ecosystem services and could seek 

to mitigate these impacts through credit or offset purchase. The USFS can 

also consider an internal ecosystem services market to meet agency goals. 

Ecosystem services generated on federal land can allow the agency to meet 

national goals (e.g., compensatory mitigation strategy).

More on mitigation—The USFS is working to develop a more systematic approach 

to avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for adverse impacts on natural resources and the ecosystem services they provide. This mitigation hierarchy establishes compensatory mitigation as the final step in a sequence of actions to offset 

unavoidable adverse impacts to natural resources (Brown 2010, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and EPA 2008). Concerning mitigation, the main types of authorities the 

USFS has are:

• Allow rights-of-way on NFS lands.

• Manage NFS lands in a manner that might necessitate mitigation. 

• Work with other agencies as interagency efforts on mitigation emerge. 

The USFS is working 

to develop a more 

systematic approach to 

avoiding, minimizing, 

and compensating for 

adverse impacts on 

natural resources and 

the ecosystem services 

they provide.
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Compensatory Mitigation and Ecosystem Services

Mitigation is a planning tool used to balance conservation and development on a landscape scale. 

It addresses adverse impacts (e.g., of development projects) on natural resources through three 

hierarchical steps: 

1. Avoidance: Use onsite planning to avoid ecological impacts. 

2. Minimization/reduction: Minimize onsite unavoidable impacts and their effect on future 

ecological and social values within and external to the project area. 

3. Compensation: Compensate for unavoidable residual impacts through the provision 

of positive or additional resources on- or offsite. Compensatory mitigation preserves, 

enhances, restores, or establishes ecological resources to compensate for or offset 

unavoidable resource impacts.

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) policies and procedures require avoidance and minimization 

of development impacts on a case-by-case basis. The agency is working through a cross-deputy 

area initiative to provide a comprehensive national mitigation framework. This could allow the 

USFS to participate in mitigation at the landscape, regional, or watershed scales, both internally 

and in partnership with other agencies and private actors. It will build from lessons learned from 

compensatory mitigation on National Forest System units and by other agencies. 

In a recent example of USFS compensatory mitigation activity, the Francis Marion and Sumter 

National Forests in South Carolina signed a conservation land use agreement in 2013 with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Charleston District that established a framework for compensatory mitigation. Under this framework, permittees and developers can meet USACE mitigation requirements, as dictated by the Clean Water Act §404, by restoring or enhancing aquatic 

resources on the national forest, or by transferring suitable lands to the appropriate National Forest 

System units. Through this framework, Boeing purchased 4,000 acres of land adjacent to the 

Francis Marion National Forest for $12 million in 2014 to be transferred to the national forest as 

compensation for unavoidable ecological impacts in a nearby development project site. 

The National Ecosystem Services Strategy Team collaborates with the leaders of the USFS 

compensatory mitigation cross-deputy team. There is an opportunity for the USFS compensatory 

mitigation framework to consider a full suite of ecosystem services in impact calculation methodologies, and offset requirements so that solutions in landscape-scale scenarios better fit the impact 

or range of impacts. An ecosystem services approach can help to identify priority areas for 

compensatory mitigation. Preservation and enhancement success can be determined by assessing 

ecosystem services benefit delivery. Nonmonetary valuation methods from the ecosystem services approach can help the agency consider how to address impacts to environmental, cultural, 

spiritual, educational, economic, and recreational resources in the compensatory mitigation 

framework. Also, work on damage assessments can potentially inform the agency’s final strategy. 
57

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Legal authority—The USDA Office of Environmental Markets and the USFS 

Ecosystem Services and Markets program are two entities in the USDA that partner with stakeholders to develop the infrastructure, capacity, and tools necessary 

to support transactions in environmental markets. Section 2709 of the 2008 U.S. 

Farm Bill focused on environmental services markets and officially established the 

Office of Environmental Markets under the department secretary. As an agency of 

the department, the USFS acts in tandem with the Office of Environmental Markets 

(Lucero 2014). The mandate for the office is to design science-based methods to 

measure, report, and maintain ecosystem services from the land management activities of farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. The 2008 U.S. Farm Bill, which 

was renewed in 2013, is a guide for the department’s vision of public involvement 

in, and support of, environmental markets. 

The S&PF Redesign Implementation Council approved new national objectives for the deputy area in 2008, including to maintain and enhance the economic 

benefits and values of trees and forests; connect people to trees and forests and 

engage them in environmental stewardship activities; and manage trees and forests 

to mitigate and adapt to global climate change (USDA FS 2008a). These national 

objectives indicate that the USFS is also prioritizing opportunities to advance 

economically viable conservation activities and stimulate markets and payments 

for ecosystem services on public and private forest land. For more details on policy 

guidance and initiatives related to environmental markets, see appendix 1. 

Opportunities for USFS involvement in environmental markets—There is no specific federal authority that authorizes the USFS to be a participant in environmental 

markets, nor does the agency’s mission clearly lead to an active role in market transactions beyond forest products. Development of the opportunities below for market 

participation is contingent upon policy clarity and defined strategic agency direction. Specific opportunities for markets include: 

• Carbon: In July 2007, the Forest Service and the NFF entered into a memorandum of understanding to develop three demonstration projects supported by the NFF’s Carbon Capital Fund (CCF). The projects reforested 

areas of NFS land to generate carbon offsets for the corporations financing the CCF. Participating companies retired the credits from the carbon 

marketplace and used the offsets generated for corporate social responsibility claims. The projects were completed in conjunction with NFS carbon 

mitigation and management goals, and continue to demonstrate the role of 

forest management in climate change mitigation. The USFS is researching 

opportunities to produce additional carbon offsets to either be retired or 

traded in the voluntary market (Ryan et al. 2010).
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Special Highlight: USFS and Wood Innovation Markets

Markets for wood-based biomass are driven by national, regional, and local climate change 

reduction and renewable energy goals. The U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) internal driver 

for increasing demand for wood-based fuel is also related to the cost of fire suppression on 

national forests and the need for restoration through biomass removal to promote resilient 

forests and healthy watersheds. In the past 3 years, the USFS biomass program has worked to 

leverage these drivers to create demand for wood energy from small-diameter timber. Owing 

to a legacy of overstocking, the USFS has a large supply of small-diameter timber to meet 

these demands. Transitioning national forests from pile-and-burn operations to increased 

woody biomass utilization can bring significant benefits for local employment, reduced 

greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable fuel supply, and avoided costs in fire suppression. 

The USFS is exploring opportunities to help incentivize biomass removal and 

develop and support markets for small-diameter timber from National Forest System and 

adjacent land. The USFS biomass program goals include: 

• Create market demand for biomass energy derived from wood utilization. 

• Work with partners on proof of concept for carbon offset credits from woody biomass utilization and solid wood cross-laminated timber (CLT) made from small 

biomass to replace carbon-intensive steel and cement in large construction. 

• Integrate biomass utilization for wood energy to existing watershed investment 

partnerships. 

• Continue to explore opportunities to layer financing to reduce barriers to entry 

and increase viability of a wood-based energy economy. 

The USFS can generate additional demand for biomass utilization by building public 

interest in, and understanding of, wood-based energy. Communication and outreach is 

critical to address perceived negative impacts of wood burning. The USFS can also use 

staff expertise and grant programs to research and pilot approaches to accurately account 

for sequestered and emitted carbon in wood utilization. The agency will benefit from 

additional staff at the Forest Products Laboratory assessing ecosystem services resulting 

from the full life cycle of biomass products including small-diameter timber harvesting, 

biomass pellets or CLT generation, and burning or construction. These supply chains 

confront challenges in carbon offset jurisdiction, community-based production distribution, access to finance for pilot projects, and local capacity for harvesting techniques. The 

Forest Service has an opportunity to address these challenges through training programs, 

partnerships with investors and bankers, grants to promote local wood energy infrastructure, and research to support metric development and clarity on environmental impacts of 

woody energy and construction. 
59

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

• Wetlands and biodiversity: The USFS can collaborate with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clarify policy 

requirements regarding compensatory wetland and species mitigation credits from public land to trade and transfer in the domestic market. The Forest 

Service can also conduct its own wetland or species mitigation projects when 

USFS activities affect these threatened ecological systems. This opportunity 

will require the Forest Service to develop capacity for monitoring ecosystem 

services outcomes from specific forest treatments and restoration activities. 

• Water: The USFS is a leading participant in water quality and quantity payments 

for ecosystem services. The USFS initiatives such as watershed investment partnerships and corporate partnerships for forest restoration are discrete transactions that 

can inform development of future market-driven projects. For instance, lhe Coca-Cola 

Company is funding forest restoration on USFS land in watersheds where the company 

operates through partnerships with NFF, NFWF, and local entities. Land management 

actions funded by Coca-Cola include construction of sediment detention basins, rehabilitation of alluvial fans, filling of deep gullies, and other projects to provide ample 

and clean water supplies for surrounding communities. Coca-Cola is not financing 

these projects in response to a specific market-based demand, but to meet its internal 

long-term water replenishment goals. These types of projects build USFS experience 

in generating defined units of ecosystem services benefits that will increase the agency’s ability to enter formal markets for water quality and quantity as they develop.

• Other: The USFS certifies that forest products from the national forest were 

derived using sustainable approaches to management and harvesting under standards of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and sometimes the Forest Stewardship 

Council. Certification is a market-based tool to incentivize forest stewardship. 

Ecosystem services are not officially measured and quantified under these certification systems, but certification often grants access to markets and sometimes price 

premiums for sustainably produced forest products.

Envisioning the future—The Forest Service’s opportunity to serve as a participant, 

designer, and facilitator of markets will be nuanced and challenging; however, the 

agency is well positioned to shape markets so they best steward the ecosystems whose 

services they monetize. The USFS can continue to connect providers and beneficiaries 

of ecosystem services by facilitating environmental markets. The agency has an opportunity to contribute to further innovation in environmental markets by developing 

tools to support private landowner engagement in markets, generating proof of concept 

from scientific research and pilot projects on national forests, engaging in partnerships 

that embrace market-based tools, and establishing national strategy around mitigation of 

impacts to natural resources.

The USFS can 

continue to 

connect providers 

and beneficiaries of 

ecosystem services 

by facilitating 

environmental 

markets.
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Synthesis 

Overview

An ecosystem services approach will not only help transform the agency into a 

more effective and relevant organization, it will bolster external relationships by 

strengthening investment in restoration outcomes and articulating a management 

vision in terms of values. It will help the agency illustrate its rationale for management decisions and rebuild trust between national forests and their surrounding 

communities. Adoption of an agencywide ecosystem services framework will 

significantly help the USFS to care for the land and serve people.

The opportunity to adopt an ecosystem services approach throughout the USFS 

could significantly improve the agency’s ability to make strategic management decisions, create adaptive policies, quantify and communicate the value of forests, build 

partnerships, and enable private landowners to engage in environmental markets. 

This paper presents 11 core opportunities to integrate ecosystem services into 

agency policy and operations (table 4), but many more may be explored through the 

engagement of staff and partners. 

The USFS is in a prime position to set the standard for integration of ecosystem 

services as a central and unifying concept in federal land management. The agency’s mission, strong research and development capacity, and focus on partnerships 

make it uniquely suited to promote innovation. Many USFS resource programs, 

research offices, national forests, or state and private partners are already using 

ecosystem services concepts to frame the objectives of their programs and monitor 

success. Building on and learning from their experiences will allow the USFS to 

work expediently toward actualizing the opportunities presented in this paper. 

Although the USFS has demonstrated leadership in the field by successfully 

integrating ecosystem services into specific agency policies and operations, this 

work is not adequately coordinated. There is a need for national policy to articulate 

the value of considering ecosystem services in all aspects of the USFS work and to 

clarify executive leadership’s intent for program staff to do so. Staff capacity can be 

strengthened by providing training resources and creating support structures to help 

employees incorporate ecosystem services analyses into their daily responsibilities. The agency would also benefit from more cohesive data collection and storage 

systems that can help tell the story of why forests matter—in ecological, social, and 

economic terms, at various scales, and in diverse contexts.

The challenges of implementing an ecosystem services approach are numerous, but not insurmountable. To realize the vast potential of ecosystem services 

to enhance the agency’s relevance and effectiveness, it is critical that the agency 

continue to focus on collaboration. Increased communication through collaborative 
61

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Table 4—Core opportunities and needs for ecosystem services integration into U.S. Forest Service policy and operationsOpportunities Needs

Resources and 

cooperation Data Communication Policy

Staff capacity 

Reference materials 

Align funding, priorities

Metrics, performance, data

Valuation and mapping tools 

Research strategy

Collaboration, partnerships

Communication strategy

Leadership signals

Strengthen policy

Clarify policy

Policy gaps

Consider ecosystem services approaches as a means to improve the transparency and success of analysis, decisionmaking, and priority setting.

Forest planning          Project-level NEPA           Program area priority setting       State forest action plans     

Quantify and communicate in terms of benefit to people through measuring, reporting, and outreach.

National assessments        Inventory monitoring and assessment        Performance measurement        

Connecting providers and beneficiaries of environmental benefits and values through investments in ecosystem services.

Incentives         Damage mitigation         Investment partnerships            Environmental markets            

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act.
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

relationships can improve internal and external information sharing about the benefits 

of national forests and grasslands (particularly to the general public and congressional appropriators), support the exchange of lessons learned from case studies 

and success stories, and highlight incentives for partnerships. To better integrate 

ecosystem services into agency operations, staff at all levels should engage in robust 

discussions around priorities and the next steps toward accomplishing this. Programs 

and deputy areas without a history of shared goals can find seats at the same table to 

address their common needs. 

Common Needs

Each of the opportunities identified in this paper has unique potential value to 

the agency, and a unique set of needs the agency must address to capitalize on 

that value. These needs fall into four broad categories: resources cooperation and 

infrastructure, data integration and management, communication, and policy. 

Beyond this, there are discrete subsets of needs within each broad category that, 

if addressed, will help the agency meet their objectives. These common, or crosscutting, needs are described in detail below.

Resources, cooperation, and infrastructure—

Build staff capacity for the concept and application of ecosystem services—

To effectively integrate an ecosystem services approach into policies and operations, the USFS must cultivate understanding and dialogue at all levels regarding 

the concept, vocabulary, and benefits of addressing ecosystem services in resource 

management decisions. Ecosystem services considerations should be integrated into 

existing programs and serve key management objectives rather than being “addons.” Communication about the ecosystem services concept should be a two-way 

exchange—i.e., staff can share key challenges and opportunities, and management can share strategies for addressing those key needs through an ecosystem 

services approach. Ecosystem services applications to management challenges 

can encourage integration across disciplines and deputy areas. The effort can use 

multidirectional communication (e.g., district level to national, national to district, 

cross-regional) to ensure policymakers understand realities on the ground, and 

forest managers understand broader agency goals.

The USFS can establish a network of champions to provide training and 

engage all forest supervisors and regional planners in this effort, which conserves 

agency resources and empowers existing leaders. These champions can then go 

on to motivate and educate within their spheres of influence. Training programs 

could also be developed to establish a cadre of individuals who can be called on to 

facilitate ecosystem services discussions and implementation, when the need arises. 
63

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

The USFS can use webinars, workshops, conferences, rotational training teams, 

forest-level learning groups, and other innovative information-sharing mechanisms 

to promote a collective understanding of the ecosystem services concept and to 

apply it across the USFS management context.

The USFS benefits from collaboration with other federal agencies and partners 

that are developing capacity for addressing ecosystem services in natural resource 

management. The U.S. Geological Survey and the EPA are among our federal 

partners in this endeavor. Efforts like the NESP promote sharing of methods and 

resources across the federal government. The USFS also supports infrastructure 

development for payment programs and markets. These tools and protocols can 

be tested and adapted on NFS lands to increase understanding and articulation of 

management outcomes.

Create and publish USFS ecosystem services resource and reference materials in 

a centrally available location—To successfully apply ecosystem services to USFS 

programs and operations, information and guidance resources need to be readily 

available and accessible to agency personnel. The desired outcomes for ecosystem 

services applications (e.g., strengthening collaboration and program integration, 

clarifying management rationales, communicating management outcomes in meaningful terms, targeting actions to maximize effectiveness) can be accomplished using tools that are adaptable for application in diverse ecological and social settings. 

Guidelines, handbooks, templates, lessons learned memos, and step-by-step manuals that allow for flexibility and creativity at the local level can accompany ecosystem services policies and facilitate implementation. These materials should be 

centrally stored and maintained to reduce redundancy, maintain currency, flag best 

practices or tools, and make stewardship of the information easier. Some resources 

that could be developed to fill existing needs include: 

• Cross-deputy area website and knowledge base: A website and knowledge base could host all of the materials mentioned below and be maintained by a cross-deputy area staff. The website can include relevant 

ecosystem services policies, archived webinars from a variety of sources, 

links to existing publications, workshop materials, training materials, manuals, podcasts, and an informal forum to source guidance from geographically dispersed staff. Maintenance of web and knowledge base services 

would require dedicated staff. 

• Forest Service ecosystem services primer: The USFS can create an 

Ecosystem Services Manual that contains USFS-accepted ecosystem services definitions and synthesizes the science of ecosystem services on forests and rangelands. 

The USFS benefits 

from collaboration with 

other federal agencies 

and partners that are 

developing capacity for 

addressing ecosystem 

services in natural 

resource management.
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

• Technical guidance: In certain instances, direct technical support should 

be available to provide clear and agreed-upon guidance on best practices 

developed through research and application with regard to specific ecosystem services protocols. Technical guidance can be in the form of handbooks, templates, and how-to guides for incorporating ecosystem services 

into various agency practices and procedures for specific types of decisionmaking and activities. Applicable analytical tools and models could be 

cross-referenced.

• Case studies: Case studies of USFS ecosystem services project experimentation and collaboration may help inspire new partnerships or the 

replication of past successes. Pilot projects for environmental markets or 

new payment mechanisms for ecosystem service delivery provide a testing 

ground for new approaches and metric development, and establish proof of 

concept for private partners.

• Lessons learned memos: Beyond case studies, creating lessons-learned 

memos would help (1) coordinate USFS teams innovating around similar 

challenges, (2) highlight shared successes and challenges, (3) create opportunities for more efficient design, and (4) decrease the time and funding 

required to replicate projects or partnerships. Having a toolkit of digestible 

materials would also help communicate the concept with the public.

Align agency staffing, funding, and program structures with ecosystem services 

priorities—Each opportunity presented in this report would benefit from an 

established USFS financial and employment infrastructure to support collaboration around an integrated ecosystem services approach. To fill this need, the 

Forest Service may consider allocating dedicated funding for ecosystem services 

across each deputy area. Agency leadership may consider using ecosystem services as an organizing principle for research and regional staff groups. The USFS 

would also benefit from recruiting a high-level leader to help drive integration of 

ecosystem services throughout agency policy and operations. To support implementation, the USFS can build capacity for addressing sustainability, ecosystem 

services, social sciences, and communication through development of existing 

employees and acquisition of new talent to serve as ecosystem service facilitators, technical assistance providers, or coordinators. An ecosystem services 

network could be modeled after the sustainable operations structure of regional 

experts. Because the ecosystem services mandate cuts across staff areas, the 

agency should identify and communicate the responsibilities of each job within 

various deputy areas and staff levels to articulate a diversity of contributions to 

an ecosystem services approach.
65

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Data integration and management—

Within the agency, data are inconsistently aggregated owing to the vast diversity 

of criteria, monitoring techniques, and regional and landscape-level intricacies in 

social, economic, and ecological conditions. Different databases may house similar 

if not identical information, which can hamper efforts to locate specific information and retrieve data. The compendium of various interfaces, data warehouses, 

and viewing tools may make data accessibility and information sharing across 

program areas or regions onerous. Information queries are also limited in scope and 

cannot pull integrated information from multiple databases in the manner necessary to examine ecosystem service provisioning and benefits across a landscape or 

watershed. The increasingly collaborative process of ecosystem services tracking 

and metric development requires clear guidance on where data are housed, both 

internally and among other public land management agencies. The complex and 

holistic ecosystem services approach to informing management decisions, reporting accomplishments, and developing environmental metrics for emerging markets 

cannot be fully achieved without actively engaging data resource program areas and 

leveraging research to develop more refined tools for assessing multiple ecosystem 

service tradeoffs across landscapes. 

Identify inventory metrics, define outcome-based performance indicators, organize and link data—The PCAST and BEST studies and data reporting suggest that 

the federal natural resource management agencies already have the collective capacity to produce the broad array of information necessary to evaluate and account 

for the provisioning and flow of ecosystem services in monitoring and assessments 

(PCAST 2011). A recent integrated business environment study detailed many of 

the data management issues facing the agency and provided recommendations for 

streamlining information and warehouse processing systems internally. The report 

found that efforts to monitor, report, and quantify ecosystem services at a broad 

scale were plagued by suspect data quality, inconsistent data cleansing, the lack 

of a functional and standardized data-retrieval process, and the collection of too 

much unwieldy data with too little direction. Underlying many of these challenges 

is a strong tendency for groups within the agency to assess data myopically to support specific business needs, causing reporting redundancies. The team conducting 

the study emphasized the need for robust system architecture, alignment of data 

collection processes and resources, establishment of an authoritative standardized 

data source, metadata registry and standards, consolidation, tracked information 

delivery, and timely updates across program areas. Realizing this goal will require 

a coordinated effort to identify, define, organize, and link data. An agencywide 

policy framework should be accompanied by credible and responsive data handling, 
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

delivery, and storage procedures to serve ecosystem services objectives. Data storage systems that are compatible across resource programs can facilitate information 

sharing and enable integrated assessments and decisions. 

Ecosystem services are assuming a more prominent role in the performance 

reporting process for executive branch agencies. The USFS needs a more meaningful and consistent process for reporting the outcomes of agency efforts both 

internally and externally. Performance objectives need to address the importance 

of forests to the American public and delineate economic contribution with ecosystem functionality. Because regional biophysical data are difficult to process and 

aggregate if overly specific, the economic and social impacts of activities should 

complement reporting and monitoring as a means to more uniformly or consistently 

describe the impacts of management. Ecosystem services metrics can help program 

managers and forest planners communicate the social value of their activities and 

conditions on their forests. The challenge is to develop measures that are broad 

enough to be applied consistently on a national level while reflecting and ensuring sensitivity to local ecological, social, and economic conditions (i.e., forests or 

regions may have more refined or varied metrics to facilitate communications and 

decisionmaking). Additionally, perception of ecosystem goods and services varies 

by sociopolitical and environmental landscape. The agency could benefit from a 

flexible, tiered approach to data management to serve a variety of purposes, where 

regional offices are afforded full discretion in collecting information and designing 

metrics that fulfill the more broadly defined objectives and standards set by the 

Washington office.

Once the agency has identified national metrics for various ecosystem services, 

and performance indicators for outcomes, data managers can coordinate and communicate with each other to develop a single data storage system that facilitates 

single-stream data retrieval to support integrated ecosystem services-based decisionmaking. Accurate and accessible data are critical for use in economic models for ecosystem services valuation as well as in nonmonetary assessments. A strong emphasis 

on increased information sharing with other federal agencies is also warranted.

Potential next steps to address these inventory, performance, and data 

needs include: 

• Establishing a reference website of USFS ecosystem services datasets and 

tools.

• Identifying list of key ecosystem services to measure, and relevant metrics 

for biophysical, social, and economic data.

• Coordinating with metrics applied in relevant settings, such as those used 

by utilities to assess the cost-benefit of watershed investments.

Ecosystem services 

metrics can help 

program managers 

and forest planners 

communicate the social 

value of their activities 

and conditions on 

their forests.
67

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

• Defining ecosystem service performance targets that are outcome-based 

and capture the value of healthy resources at the national level.

• Identifying examples or templates of ecosystem services desired conditions 

that can apply at regional or forest levels.

• Coordinating inventory efforts to reduce data overlap.

• Consolidating data storage and retrieval into transparent and user-accessible databases through a library or catalogue that helps categorize and crossreference information, projects, and models.

• Collaborating with other federal agencies to leverage existing know-how 

when data are required beyond NFS boundaries. 

• Establishing a long-term common framework and transparent governance 

of data systems to improve agency ability to collect and use data.

Value and map ecosystem services using current tools and methodologies—

Credible tools and replicable techniques for quantifying and valuing ecosystem services are needed to support decisionmaking. These tools and methodologies could 

help the USFS communicate changes in ecosystem services delivery in a variety 

of terms, including biophysical units and social and economic outcomes. Existing 

agency tools and resources should be leveraged to characterize ecosystem services 

benefits provided by forests and grasslands. However, many of these tools do not 

adequately reflect regulating or supporting services and rarely consider the values 

of these services, which limits the agency’s ability to communicate these values and 

consider tradeoffs across management alternatives. To best inform decisionmaking processes, models and tools should be capable of illuminating linkages between 

land management shifts and ecosystem services delivery. Appropriate and robust 

methods to value (monetized or nonmonetized) ecosystem services based on market 

and nonmarket cost should be highlighted and explored for wide-scale applicability to ecological services of interest. For example, avoided cost analysis could be 

Avoided Costs

A partnership with California utilities centers on restoring forests to avoid 

costs related to wildfire threats, such as damage to infrastructure and 

impaired water quality. The White House has continually communicated that 

inaction on climate change implies high future costs for citizens and corporations. John Podestra, advisor to President Obama, stated: “The cost of inaction 

on wildfires and climate change is too high a price for Americans to pay, 

particularly when we have a chance to address this right now.”
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

applied to determine the ecological value-added of natural regulating or supporting 

services based on the estimated amount of economic damage resulting in the absence of selected services or ecosystems. The agency can identify where gaps exist 

in valuation and where models and methodologies for valuation and quantification 

should be identified, tested, modified, and made accessible to maximize the agency’s ability to describe ecosystem services benefits, such as the frequency and success of their application, and guidelines for integrating modeling results into current 

operations, decisionmaking, and adaptive management.

Equally important is the need to conduct national assessments to link USFS 

activities to the conditions and health of natural resources as well as to the conditions and welfare of communities and people. Because ecosystem services are 

strongly dependent on geographic relationships between resource conditions, flows, 

and beneficiaries, a spatial product would be very useful. Mapping trends in quantified ecosystem services values across ownership categories on a national scale, 

while scaling to local and regional subassessments, will provide a communication 

tool to the public and a decisionmaking tool for the USFS. The agency has already 

begun internal and collaborative processes of data inventorying and monitoring 

regional trends and vulnerabilities as they relate to ecosystem service flows over 

time. For example, the agency is a member organization in the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative, which is directing a project mapping ecosystem 

threats and stressors across the landscape as they affect service flows, as well as 

collating the data sources and models needed to further their studies. Projects like 

this have added value in linking stakeholders and external partners to identify 

shared commonalities and leverage existing technical capacity and datasets.

Meeting needs in quantification, valuation, and mapping will entail: 

• Assessing the ability of current agency tools and resources to address ecosystem services objectives.

• Identifying models and methodologies that have potential for USFS use in 

a variety of settings (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, project scale, landscape 

scale, rapid assessment, and indepth).

• Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the various tools.

• Deciding which tools to apply in which circumstances, or whether to design 

new applications and, if so, how to integrate them.

• Conducting national-scale assessments of the condition of various ecosystem services.

• Linking quantified ecosystem services changes to USFS management and 

community values and needs. 

• Conducting mapping exercises of these values to support site-specific understanding of benefits and where USFS management affects their delivery.
69

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Develop an ecosystem services research strategy to fill information gaps—

To support all the opportunities identified in this report and others yet to be articulated, USFS programs, units, and resource areas can collaborate with the R&D 

deputy area to design a shared vision for ecosystem services and tackle information 

gaps to implement that vision. Research and Development can address a variety of 

needs including the development of ecosystem services metrics, protocols, and tools 

for tradeoff analysis; incorporation of ecosystem services into state action plans; 

understanding of the science of environmental market credit stacking; and additionality in carbon pilots. This research can be coordinated on NFS units through 

forest management, or in urban areas and diverse ownerships through S&PF. Most 

critical is the need to better articulate and document the complex causal relationships between changes in ecological structure or function in providing ecosystem 

services on private and public lands, and the role the agency plays in impacting 

changes through management, partnerships, and financial assistance. To fully realize and develop a comprehensive strategy, researchers are collaborating with external partners and academic institutions through regional conservation cooperatives 

and watershed councils to address data needs, consolidate information on projects 

to leverage expertise, elevate human dimension components, and avoid duplication 

of efforts. As the USFS inventory, monitoring and assessment is evaluated through 

an ecosystem services lens, it can also help shape a national research agenda based 

on information gaps between how data are collected and reported.

Communication—

The ecosystem services concept has tremendous potential to help the USFS communicate the importance of forests and grasslands to staff, Congress, the public, 

and stakeholders. Highlighting relationships between ecological conditions, management, conservation of public lands, and social benefits can help the agency illustrate the rationale for planning goals and project implementation. Communication 

about ecosystem services objectives involves an iterative exchange of information 

across USFS programs, and between the agency and the public. This exchange can 

help USFS staff understand interdisciplinary drivers for management and how best 

to address public values and priorities. It is also imperative that the agency clearly 

articulate the added value of an ecosystem services approach from the perspective 

of agency effectiveness and efficient management of public resources.

Expand collaborative outreach and partnerships—Partnerships with nongovernmental organizations; federal, state, and local agencies; universities; and other 

private entities can help the USFS accomplish shared goals for ecosystem services 

delivery. These partnerships are particularly critical given constrained time and 

The ecosystem 

services concept has 

tremendous potential 

to help the USFS 

communicate the 

importance of forests 

and grasslands to staff, 

Congress, the public, 

and stakeholders.
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

resources. To enhance the agency’s ability to partner with for-profit entities and 

exchange financial resources to support the delivery of benefits, the USFS can consider the following options for future action:

• Review learning and share experiences with other federal agencies about 

the potential impact and regulatory nuance of private partnerships.

• Articulate a shared vision of collaboration between forests and their local 

partners. This includes increasing an understanding of what ecosystem 

services are, what their value is to local communities, and what publicprivate partnerships can do to support the continued delivery of benefits.

• Develop guidance documents to help regional offices design and replicate ecosystem services projects. Lessons learned from existing initiatives 

have yet to be compiled. Maintaining partnerships can be time and capital 

intensive, especially for lightly staffed local USFS offices. Publishing stepby-step or how-to guidelines to leverage existing know-how could reduce 

up-front costs.

• Support expanded national ecosystem services collaborations with mapping and data analysis. Mapping public ecosystem services values and 

USFS management impacts will help highlight opportunities for collaboration. The USFS is currently working with Forest Trends, the USDA, 

EPA (USEPA 2008), and U.S. Geological Survey to create an extension on 

Enviro-Atlas to illustrate the prevalence of environmental markets with 

geospatially linked qualitative and quantitative data. This map could be a 

great first step toward exploring opportunities for USFS to facilitate and 

enable ecosystem services markets.

• Analyze the extent to which forest restoration can help avoid unnaturally 

high-severity wildfires or reduce the cost of mitigating the impacts of 

climate change to help the USFS articulate the business case for investments in forest-related ecosystem services. For instance, the USFS collaborated with The Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Nevada Conservancy 

to research and model the potential effects of fuel treatments in the upper 

Mokelumne River watershed on the probability, extent, and intensity of 

wildfire. The partners also evaluated the costs and benefits of fuel reduction 

treatments on future fire suppression costs. The study found that the “total 

quantified benefits of fuel treatment would very likely exceed the costs of 

treatment” (Buckley et al. 2014).
71

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Broaden communication to decisionmakers and citizens—In addition to collaborative outreach, the USFS needs a more formal communication strategy at all levels 

of the agency to support an ecosystem services approach. Communication strategies 

can be linked from NFS units to regional offices, across research teams, and across 

national programs, resources, and deputy areas. Communicating the value of USFS 

activities in delivering public benefits will require the agency to identify and engage 

key stakeholders, and to craft tailored messages based on input from those stakeholders to illustrate how the agency achieves diverse objectives and serves varied 

constituencies. These messages need to be consistent but communicated using multiple avenues and mediums. Strengthening public participation in decisionmaking 

at various scales and points in the planning process can build mutual understanding and trust in USFS activities and underscore the relevance of the USFS mission. 

Overall, increased communication from USFS supports a better understanding of 

society’s dependence on forest and grassland ecosystems and the role the agency 

plays in sustaining those benefits. 

Policy—

Support leadership agreement on a national strategy and authority for the 

agency—Support for a governance framework that catalyzes an ecosystem services 

approach throughout the agency must begin with agreement and coordination from 

leadership. Presently, program directors, regional directors, forest supervisors, and 

associate deputy chiefs may have divergent views regarding the potential for using 

ecosystem services to plan, monitor, and communicate USFS activities. It is important to establish a space for coordinated leadership to promote understanding of the 

issues and foster open dialogue to reflect upon the tradeoffs among policy options. 

Deliberate and coordinated leadership can help align program objectives with the 

agency mission. Leadership can engage with internal and external experts around 

rapidly evolving ecosystem services science to build on the ideas and suggestions 

in this report and develop a national strategy for integrating an ecosystem services 

approach into USFS policy and operations. 

Defining policies will result in an energized, synchronized, and transparent 

agency that is capable of building highly successful partnerships and achieving 

demonstrable positive outcomes for citizens. To create this framework, the USFS 

must address policy and governance needs. The agency’s policy needs fall into 

three categories: (1) strengthening existing policy, (2) clarifying existing policy, and 

(3) addressing absence of policy.
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Strengthen ecosystem services concepts within existing policy—

Agency NEPA language: National forests developing land management plans 

under the 2012 NFS land management planning rule must address ecosystem 

services in their management vision. Projects that tier to these plans will reflect this 

vision and can therefore include ecosystem services objectives. The NEPA requires 

federal agencies to assess project-level management options through a public participation process that considers the social, economic, and environmental impacts of 

multiple alternative actions. While the NEPA does not specifically mention ecosystem services, the regulation underscores linkages among social, economic, and 

environmental considerations. Applying ecosystem services concepts to the NEPA 

process can directly serve the intent of the regulation. 

Using the NEPA as a tool to consider project-level ecosystem services delivery 

will require digestible guidance for NFS units, which can be informed by existing pilot projects with input from national and regional program leadership. This 

guidance should emphasize the value of such an approach—including allowing for 

more highly integrated and interdisciplinary management recommendations, and 

more meaningful articulation of management rationale and outcomes—as well as 

the efficiency gains experienced by case study units. It should also highlight project 

characteristics that are most conducive to applying ecosystem services concepts, 

and those for which it might not be appropriate.

State and national assessment language: The 2008 Food, Conservation and 

Energy Act (U.S. Farm Bill; USDA 2008) requires all states to complete an assessment of forest resources every five years. This assessment is to be accompanied by 

a strategy or action plan to accomplish three objectives: preserve working forests, 

protect forests from harm, and enhance public benefits derived from trees and forests. An ecosystem services approach to long-term forest stewardship on public and 

private lands can directly address this final objective. Stronger language referring 

to the benefits of applying ecosystem services to forest action plans would facilitate 

consistent use of methods and data aggregation on a national scale. The USFS can 

work with states to capitalize on the potential for addressing ecosystem services in 

forest action plans. 

The 1974 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act requires 

the USFS to complete national assessments of renewable resources. This act 

states that managing renewable resources involves consideration of, “tangible 

and intangible goods and services, along with estimates of investment costs and 

direct and indirect returns” (16 U.S.C 1600). This language points to consideration of the full suite of benefits from forests and grasslands, without specifically 

referencing the concept of ecosystem services. Data on ecosystem services 
73

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

delivery, threats, and trends developed from national assessments could be highly 

beneficial for all partners involved in forest stewardship nationwide, and especially for the USFS. 

Clarify an ecosystem services approach within existing policy—

Partnership language: Multiple authorities provide for the exchange of funds 

and services between the USFS and private entities. These include participating agreements, challenge-cost share agreements, collection agreements, and 

interagency agreements. While the agency has these legal tools at its disposal, it 

does not have the benefit of clear policy language establishing authority to create 

investment partnerships with nontraditional partners, such as utility companies 

and private sector actors. However, there is no policy language that expressly 

prohibits these actions either. In the absence of clear authorizing language, the 

USFS established an informal 2011 public-private partnership strategy. This is 

indicative of agency leadership’s dedication to promoting shared investment in 

the benefits from healthy forests and grasslands. Still, more often than not the 

USFS chooses to work through nonprofit third party partners to avoid endorsement concerns and other conflicts, rather than working directly with a private 

entity when attempting to connect providers and beneficiaries of ecosystem 

services. Clarifying policy can help the agency leverage the impacts and benefits 

of its interventions. Policy clarification will eliminate misinformation regarding 

USFS authority to work with private partners and reduce the tentativeness of NFS 

units, research stations, regional offices, and national programs to pursue innovative investment partnerships.

Damage assessments language: Specific authorities allow the USFS to 

assess damages occurring on or affecting NFS lands, resources, and properties. 

Calculating damage costs according to impacts on ecosystem service values and 

ecological function is not expressly authorized or prohibited. The three landmark 

cases presented earlier, U.S. vs. Scarry, the Storrie Fire case, and the PG&E Fire 

case, validated USFS damage calculations that were based on more than merely 

timber values, suppression, and restoration costs. In these cases, the final ruling 

of mitigation costs included both market and nonmarket values. However, most 

damage assessments do not fully account for the value of the ecosystem services 

delivered by the impacted resource. This presents a considerable opportunity 

for USFS. In 2013, the agency closed 350 damage assessment claims for over 

$146 million. If all 350 claims accounted for ecosystem services values and 

reflected the true impact of the damages, this sum would increase significantly. 

The agency could benefit pursuing clear and decisive policy to mandate, or 

at least expressly allow, inclusion of ecosystem services and public values in 
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

natural resource damage calculations. These processes should include building an 

understanding and prioritization of ecosystem service-oriented resiliency goals 

within the NFS offices of Engineering, Law Enforcement and Investigations, and 

Budget and Finance Claims, and other relevant resource programs; agreement on 

a consistent valuation method and ecosystem modeling tools that are cost effective; and exploring avenues for data collection in a systematic faction to support 

these techniques.

Address the absence of policy—

Cooperative assistance language: Currently, there is no legislative direction 

regarding how the USFS should target financial, technical, and cooperative assistance. Similarly, there is also no legislative direction regarding how the USFS 

should monitor outcomes from this assistance. The USFS can continue to increase 

the impacts of the financial incentives and technical support it offers by focusing on 

actions that deliver the most significant ecosystem services benefits. 

There is also an absence of policy related to the USFS role in dictating whether 

private lands enrolled in Forest Legacy Program (FLP), Forest Stewardship Program, or other cooperative forestry assistance programs are able to generate and 

trade credits in environmental markets. In some instances, private landowners with 

easements established through the FLP have successfully generated and sold carbon 

credits in voluntary and regulated markets. In other instances, FLP easements possess language which either intentionally or unintentionally restricts the landowner’s 

ability to participate in carbon markets. Sometimes language in FLP agreements is 

ambiguous and landowners are unclear about whether participation in environmental markets is permitted. An overarching policy to guide private landowners engaging in cooperative forestry assistance act programs and environmental markets 

would dramatically decrease this uncertainty.

Environmental markets language: There is currently no national guidance regarding ecosystem services metrics. The USFS is not a regulatory agency, and therefore is not responsible for creating policy clarity for private landowners. However, 

the agency can collaborate with other governmental agencies to develop scientific 

analyses and policy recommendations necessary to support credible accounting and 

verification systems and standardized methods for delivering ecosystem services 

benefits. The agency can dedicate staff to explore these scientific questions and 

resources and pilot potential solutions to conceptual challenges in environmental 

markets such as credit stacking and credit bundling.

The USFS does not have internal policy to indicate whether the agency’s lands 

are eligible to generate saleable credits in environmental markets. The USFS has 
75

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

engaged in reforestation projects to demonstrate the role of forests in climate 

mitigation. These projects used market-accepted certification protocols but retired 

the certified credits, making them ineligible for trading on the open market. The 

USFS has also developed pilot projects to develop potential metrics for water quality and water quantity trading, but has not enrolled its lands in transactions. These 

projects have primarily been pursued out of the public eye. The agency has not yet 

held internal discussions to refine its position on key questions such as: Will credits 

contribute toward voluntary markets, or offset/mitigate additional impacts? What if 

the USFS did not retire credits, but instead sold them in an environmental market? 

What if the USFS did not use third-party nongovernmental orgaizations partners in 

accepting money for credits and instead dealt directly with private entities to accept 

investments for benefits delivered? How should incentives be provided to landowners while not overpaying them for the baseline of services already being delivered 

(i.e., stacking)? (Marshall and Weinberg 2012). How should the USFS participate in 

markets to support rather than displace the engagement of private forest landowners? What if NFS units could use ecosystem services markets as a tool within existing federally approved forest management plans? What would the costs and benefits 

be of certifying public timber through organizations like the Forest Stewardship 

Council? Before designing policy to provide clarity, the agency can work to understand these implications and formulate answers to these questions. Additionally, 

it will be necessary for collaboration among land management agencies to create 

consistency regarding market suitability and interoperability across land ownership 

types in exchanging and verifying credits.

How to Get Involved 

Ecosystem services can serve every level of the USFS organization—from national 

program leaders across all deputy areas to district resource specialists in every 

discipline. Examples of ways in which staff with diverse roles and responsibilities 

can contribute to the integration of ecosystem services in agency programs and 

operations are provided below.

National program leaders can frame the vision for their program in terms of ecosystem services provided to the public. This can help illustrate how each program 

serves the agency’s mission. Program leaders can establish goals and funding decisions that align with ecosystem service objectives, and articulate accomplishments 

in terms of ecological, social, and economic outcomes to enhance understanding 

about the significance of program activities. They can also support the development of consistent national data collection to serve ecosystem services metrics and 

outcome-based performance indicators. 

Ecosystem services 

can serve every 

level of the USFS 

organization—from 

national program 

leaders across all 

deputy areas to district 

resource specialists in 

every discipline. 
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Forest supervisors can use ecosystem services to tell the story of why their forest matters to local communities and the Nation as a whole. Related dialogues can 

strengthen connections with collaborators and inspire staff engagement with the 

public. Forest supervisors can work with staff and partners to identify land management challenges that an ecosystem services approach can help address.

District rangers can identify projects that are suitable for application of ecosystem 

services to on-the-ground planning efforts and inspire collaborative, cross-jurisdictional restoration efforts. Along with forest supervisors, district rangers can help 

structure their organizations and staff time to support ecosystem services approaches to management and establish a vision for new ways of doing business. 

Resource specialists can articulate connections between ecological conditions and 

a landscape’s capacity to provide ecosystem services. They can work across disciplines to establish landscapewide context for planning efforts and to clarify the 

rationale for management actions.

Partnership coordinators can support the involvement of stakeholders and partner 

organizations in characterizing ecosystem services provided by forests. They can 

also identify beneficiaries of public and private forest stewardship and apply ecosystem services concepts to initiative engagement and investment in forest management.

Research scientists can help develop agency capacity and understanding of the 

ecosystem services that landscapes provide, and describe relationships between 

management activities, ecological condition, ecosystem services provision, and 

monetary and nonmonetary value of those services. They can help design production functions and valuation methodologies that articulate these relationships and 

assist resource specialists with assessments of the connections between ecological 

conditions and service provisions. Protocols, metrics, and tools can also support the 

development of ecosystem services markets in the private sector.

State and Private Forestry program leaders can apply ecosystem services approaches to articulate the benefits provided by grant programs that are directed to 

private landowners but intended to serve the public good. They can support the development of ecosystem services markets and payment programs and engage private 

landowners in these opportunities. State and Private Forestry also plays a critical role 

in working with states to address ecosystem services with state forest action plans.
77

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Acknowledgments

This general technical report was greatly improved by the detailed comments from 

numerous USFS reviewers from the National Forest System, Research and Development, and State and Private Forestry. In particular, we want to thank Carita Chan, 

Tracy Hancock, Chris Miller, Jeff Kline, Timory Peel, Michelle Aldridge, Nat 

Gillespie, Karen Dante, Sam Gaugush, Joe Carbon, Kristin Meroney, Paul Arndt, 

Robert Haight, Jim Beck and Nick Goldstein.” Special thanks to William Connelly, 

planning specialist, USFS Ecosystem Management Coordination, for his advice and 

review of content related to land management planning.

References

Bear, D. 2014. Integration of ecosystem services valuation analysis into National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance: legal and policy perspectives. In: 

Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. Durham, 

NC: National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University. http://www.

nespguidebook.com. (14 July 2016).

Bedell-Loucks, A. 2014. Personal communication. Assistant director, Cooperative 

Forestry, USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, 201 14th St. SW, 

Washington, DC 20250.

Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for 

standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics. 

63(2–3): 616–626.

Brown, H. 2010. Climate change and the Forest Service. Unpublished report. On 

file with: USDA Forest Service, Washington office, Policy Analysis Staff, 201 

14th St., SW, Washington, DC 20024.

Brown, T.C.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Loomis, J.B. 2007. Defining, valuing, and 

providing ecosystem goods and services. Natural Resources Journal. 47: 329–376.

Buckley, M.; Beck, N.; Bowden, P.; Miller, M.E.; Hill, B.; Luce, C.; Elliot, 

W.J.; Enstice, N.; Podolak, K.; Winford, E.; Smith, S.L.; Bokach, M.; 

Reichert, M.; Edelson, D.; Gaither, J. 2014. Mokelumne watershed avoided 

cost analysis: why Sierra fuel treatments make economic sense. Auburn, CA: 

Sierra Nevada Conservancy. 294 p.

Carpenter, S.R.; Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D. 2006. Scenarios for ecosystem 

services: an overview. Ecology and Society. 11(1): 29.
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Carson, R.T.; Mitchell, R.C.; Hanemann, M.; Kopp, R.J.; Presser, S.; Ruud, 

P.A. 2003. Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill. Environmental and Resource Economics. 25(3): 257–286.

Casey, F.; Vickerman, S.; Hummon, C.; Taylor, B. 2006. Incentives for 

biodiversity conservation: an ecological and economic assessment. Washington, 

DC: Defenders of Wildlife. 92 p.

Cerretani, K.; Jones, W.D. 2011. Planning for the future of southern forests 

summary document: 2010 statewide forest resource assessments and strategies. 

R8-PR 61. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Region. 32 p.

Collins, S.; Larry, E. 2007. Caring for our natural assets: an ecosystem services 

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

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 11 p.

Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; 

Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; Raskin, R.G.; Sutton, P.; 

van den Belt, M. 1998. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural 

capital. Ecological Economics. 25(1): 3–15.

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. 1997. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural 

ecosystems. Issues in Ecology No. 2. Washington, DC: Ecological Society of 

America. (http://www.esa.org/esa/science/issues/). (16 June 2016).

Deal, R.; Weidner, E.; Smith, N. 2014. Integrating ecosystem services into 

Forest Service programs and operations. In: Federal Resource Management and 

Ecosystem Services Guidebook. Durham, NC: National Ecosystem Services 

Partnership, Duke University.http://www.nespguidebook.com. (14 July 2016). 

Duraiappah, A.K. 2006. Markets for ecosystem services: a potential tool 

for multilateral environmental agreements. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: 

International Institute for Sustainable Development. 25 p.

Ecosystem Marketplace. 2013. Innovative markets and market-like instruments 

for ecosystem services: the matrix 2013. Forest Trends. http://www.

ecosystemmarketplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/the_matrix.pdf. 

(18 June 2016).

Ehrlich, P.R.; Ehrlich, A.H. 1981. Extinction: the causes and consequences of the 

disappearance of species. New York: Random House. 305 p.
79

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Farley, J.; Costanza, R. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to 

global. Ecological Economics. 69(11): 2060–2068.

Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K. 2008. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. 

Biological Conservation. 141(5): 1167–1169.

Foley, T.; Bowles, J.; Smith, N. Caligiuri., P. 2014. An ecosystem services 

approach to management of a complex landscape: the Marsh Project. In: 

Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. Durham, 

NC: National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University. http://www.

nespguidebook.com. (14 July 2016).

Forest Trends; The Katoomba Group; United Nations Environment 

Programme. 2008. Payments for ecosystem services: getting started: a primer. 

Washington, DC. 74 p.

Gledhill, R.; Grant, J.; Low, L.P. 2008. Review of carbon markets. United 

Kingdom: Pricewaterhouse Coopers and The Climate Group. 23 p.

Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] Modernization Act of 2010. 

2011. 5 U.S.C. 306 Chapter 3; 31 U.S.C. 1105, 1115, 1116, 1120, 1122 and 901 

Chapter 11.

de Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. 2002. A typology for the 

classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and 

services. Ecological Economics. 41(3): 393–408.

Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. 2010. Ecosystem ecology: the links between 

biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Rafaelli, D.G.; Frid, 

C.L.J., eds. Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge, United Kingdom: 

Cambridge University Press: 110–139. Chapter 6.

Hill, B.T. 2000. Forest Service-status of efforts to improve accountability 

[Testimony before the Subcommittee on Interior and related agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives]. Washington, DC: 

U.S. General Accounting Office.

Jones, M. 2003. Guidance for the establishment, use, and operation of conservation 

banks [Memorandum]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service.

Kline, J.D. 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.
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J.; Spies, T.A.; Harmon, M.E. 2013. Applying the 

ecosystem services concept to public land management. Agricultural and 

Resource Economics Review. 42(1): 139–158.

Kretchun, A.; Gravenmier, B.; Smith, N. [In press]. Guide for applying 

ecosystem services in plan revisions under the 2012 Planning Rule. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 

Kroeger, T.; Casey, F. 2007. An assessment of market-based approaches to 

providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Ecological Economics. 

64(2): 321–332.

LaRocco, G.L.; Deal, R.L. 2011. Giving credit where credit is due: increasing 

landowner compensation for ecosystem services. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-842. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 32 p.

Lucero, C. 2014. Developing markets for ecosystem services [Presentation]. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Environmental 

Markets. Presentation. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Washington office, 

Cooperative Forestry Staff, 201 14th St., SW, Washington, DC 20024.

Lynn, K.; MacKendrick, K.; Donoghue, E.M. 2011. Social vulnerability 

and climate change: synthesis of literature. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-838. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 70 p.

Marshall, E.; Weinberg, M. 2012. Baselines in environmental markets: tradeoffs 

between cost and additionality. Economic Brief No. 18. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 8 p. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: 

synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. 137 p.

Miller, C.; Ng, K.; Smith, N. 2014. Ecosystem services and land management 

plan revision: preliminary observations of three ecosystem services evaluation 

framework group members. In: Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem 

Services Guidebook. Durham, NC: National Ecosystem Services Partnership, 

Duke University. http://www.nespguidebook.com. (14 July 2016). 

Muradian, R.; Corbera, E.; Pascual, U.; Kosoy, N.; May, P.H. 2010. Reconciling 

theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding 

payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics. 69(6): 1202–1208.
81

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

National Association of State and Private Foresters [NASF]. 2014. State & 

Private Forestry. http://stateforesters.org/about-action-plans/state-private-forestry. 

(16 June 2016.)

National Ecosystem Services Strategy Team [NESST]. 2013. National 

Ecosystem Services Strategy Team Charter. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service.

National Ecosystem Services Partnership [NESP[. 2014. Federal Resource 

Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. Durham, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. https://nespguidebook.com. 

(14 July 2016).

Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. 2003. Regulatory analysis. Circular 

A-4. (September 17, 2003). Washington, DC. 48 p.

Patil, P.G. 2012. Moving beyond GDP: how to factor natural capital into economic 

decision making. Working paper 69612. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 

Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services. 23 p.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST]. 2011.

Report to the President sustaining environmental capital: protecting society and 

the economy. Executive Report. Washington, DC: White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy. 145 p.

Ribaudo, M.; Hansen, L.; Hellerstein, D.; Greene, C. 2008. The use of markets 

to increase private investment in environmental stewardship. Economic Research 

Report 64. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. 77 p.

Roessing, M.; Innes, J.; Dougherty, T.; Raaf, T. 2014. Stewardship contracting: 

overview, update and examples [Presentation]. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management.

Ryan, M.G.; Harmon, M.E.; Birdsey, R.A.; Giardina, C.P.; Heath, L.S.; 

Houghton, R.A.; Jackson, R.B.; McKinley, D.C.; Morrison, J.F.; Murray, 

B.C.; Pataki, D.E.; Skog, K.E. 2010. A synthesis of the science on forests and 

carbon for U.S. forests. Issues in Ecology No. 13. Washington, DC: Ecological 

Society of America. 16 p.

Scarlett, L.; Boyd, J. 2011. Ecosystem services: quantification, policy applications, 

and current federal capabilities. Discussion paper (11-13). Washington, DC: 

Resources for the Future. 75 p. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_

id=1794242. (5 January 2016).
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Simpson, H.; Taylor, E.; Li, Y.; Barber, B. 2013. Texas statewide assessment 

of forest service ecosystem services. College Station, TX: Texas A&M Forest 

Service. 92 p.

Smith, N.; Deal, R.; Kline, J.; Blahna, D.; Patterson, T.; Spies, T.A.; Bennett, K. 

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.

TCW Economics. 2010. Economic contributions and impacts of salmonid 

resources in southeast Alaska. Final report. Prepared for: Trout Unlimited Alaska 

Program, 419 Sixth Street, Suite 200, Juneau, AK 99801.

The National Forest Foundation; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 2005. Partnership guide: The power of people working together. 

[Location of publisher unknown]. http://www.partnershipresourcecenter.org/

resources/partnership-guide/. 

Thorsen, K.A. 2011. Office of Wildland Fire Policy Memorandum 2011-1. 

Department of the Interior Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and Allocation 

System [Memorandum]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Office of the Secretary.

Urban, D.; Olander, L. 2014. Framework overview. In: Federal Resource 

Management and Ecosystem Service Guidebook. Durham, NC: National 

Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University. https://nespguidebook.com. 

(14 July 2016). 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. 

Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources; Final Rule. 33 CFR 

Parts 325 and 332; 40 CFR Part 230. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007. The Forest 

Service Manual. Amend. 1400. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2008a. S&PF 

national priorities and objectives. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2008b. Who owns 

America’s forests? Forest ownership patterns and family forest highlights from 

the National Woodland Owner Survey. Rep. NRS-INF-06-08. Newtown Square, 

PA: Northern Research Station. 7 p.
83

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2009. Stewardship 

contracting: basic stewardship contracting concepts [Brochure]. FS-893. 

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012a. National 

Forest System Land Management Planning. 36 Federal Register 219. (9 April 

2012). Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012b. Partner with 

us: a look at partnerships within the USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC. 8 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5400216.pdf. (June 

19, 2016).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2013. Forest Legacy 

Program. http://www.fs.fed.us/cooperativeforestry/programs/loa/flp.shtml. (12 

February 2016).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2014a. HighPerformance Partnership Report Second Quarter FY14 January–March 2014. 

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2014b. Stewardship 

end result contracting. http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/Stewardship_

Contracting/. (14 July 2014).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2015a. Fiscal year 

2016 budget overview. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2015b. Forest 

Service Handbook. FSH 1909.12 §13.12. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2016. Partnership 

Resource Center. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/prc/home/?cid=stelprd380415

6&width=full#Western%20Utilities%20Partnership. (15 January 2016).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2015c. Forest 

Stewardship Program. http://www.fs.fed.us/cooperativeforestry/programs/loa/fsp.

shtml. (14 July 2016).

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015a. The Farm Bill USDA. http://www.usda.

gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=farmbill. (2 March 2016).

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015b. USDA Office of the Chief Economist: 

environmental markets: understanding environmental markets. http://www.usda.

gov/oce/environmental_markets/understanding.htm. (18 February 2016).
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2012.

Conservation banking: incentives for stewardship. http://www.fws.gov/

endangered/esa-library/pdf/conservation_banking.pdf. (24 December 2015).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water [USEPA]. 2015. 

Mitigation banking factsheet. http://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/mitigation-bankingfactsheet. (2 March 2016).

Waage, S.; Kester, C. 2014. Global public sector trends in ecosystem services, 

2009–2013. Business for Social Responsibility. San Francisco, CA. http://

www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Global_Public_Sector_Trends_Ecosystem_

Services_2009_2013.pdf

Western Environment and Ecology, Inc. 2006. Colorado state-wide forest legacy 

assessment of need five year review. Presented to: Colorado State Forest Service, 

Fort Collins, CO 80523-6010.

Wheldon, L.A.C.; Hubbard, J.E. 2013. Memo to regional foresters, station 

directors, area director, IITF director, deputy chiefs and WO directors. Geospatial requirements for national record Keeping. On file with: USDA Forest 

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.

Willamette Partnership, Pinchot Institute for Conservation, and World 

Resources Institute. 2012. In it together: a how-to reference for building pointnonpoint water quality trading programs. Willamette Partnership, 4640 SW 

Macadam Ave., Portland, OR 97239. http://willamettepartnership.org/wp-content/

uploads/2014/09/In-It-Together-Part-3_2012-07-31.pdf. 44 p. (15 July 2016)

Willamette Partnership, World Resources Institute, and the National Network 

on Water Quality Trading. 2015. Building a water quality trading program: 

options and consideration. Willamette Partnership, 4640 SW Macadam 

Ave., Portland, OR 97239. http://willamettepartnership.org/wp-content/

uploads/2015/06/BuildingaWQTProgram-NNWQT.pdf. 207 p. (15 July 2016).

World Bank. 2012. Massive show of support for action on natural capital 

accounting at Rio summit. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2012/06/20/massive-show-support-action-natural-capital-accounting-riosummit. (12 February 2016).
85

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Table 5—U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Ecosystem Services Governance Framework (continued)Policy Description Ecosystem services relevance for USFS National Forest Management Act 

of 1976 (NFMA), (16 U.S.C. §§ 1600–1687)

NFS units must revise land management 

plans every 15 years. USFS must conduct activities following an analysis of environmental and economic impacts.

The policy calls for transparent analyses of ecological, social, 

and economic tradeoffs and consideration of natural resource management impacts to public values through intentional planning.

The Multiple Use Sustained Yield 

Act (MUSYA)

National forests must be managed for 

multiple uses (recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife). 

“Multiple use means: The management of all the various 

renewable surface resources of the NFS.” (16 USC 528) This language is inclusive of multiple resources, including ecosystem services. 

The National Forest System (NFS)

Land Management Planning Rule of 2012 (36 C.F.R. § 219)

The rule was developed by the Forest 

Service to implement the 1976 NFMA. Forest plans must include components for integrated resource management to provide ecosystem services. 

Guides management of NFS units so, “they have the capacity 

to provide people and communities with ecosystem services and multiple uses.” The rule uses ecosystem services as a facilitating approach for planning. Note: Forest Service Handbook directives for the 2012 rule are in public comment and are expected to be final in 2014. 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1970

The law requires federal agencies to assess 

the impacts of project-level management actions on environmental conditions and to balance those impacts against social and economic considerations through public participation. 

Federal agencies are directed by Congress to “utilize a 

systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences....in planning and decision-making” (42 U.S.C. 4332(A)) 

Forest Service Handbook Chapter 

1940—Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment Activities

Inventory, monitoring and assessment 

(IMA) activities are coordinated through a national integrated program planning process that addresses information needs across the agency. 

IMA objectives include: “Support an adaptive land 

management process that includes social, economic, and ecological evaluations.” 

Appendix 1 
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-943

Table 5—U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Ecosystem Services Governance Framework (continued)Policy Description Ecosystem services relevance for USFS Government Performance and 

Results (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010

Agencies must develop 5-year strategic 

plans which outline a mission statement, goals and performance indicators. Agencies must prepare annual performance reports against performance goals. 

This legislation requires that the agency develop performance 

indicators and performance reports which flow from this mission. Ecosystem services are a link between land and people. 

Cooperative Forestry Assistance 

Act of 1978 (16 USC 2013), Amended through Public Law 110-246 in 2008

USFS is authorized to provide financial, 

technical, educational, and related assistance to state and private stakeholders for the protection and maintenance of forest land. 

Legislation enables USFS to provide assistance to ensure the 

maintenance of forests and “the multiple values and uses that depend on such lands.” 

Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008, H.R. 2419, Section 2709

This act established the Office of 

Environmental Markets under the USDA Secretary. The mandate for the office is to design science-based methods to measure, report, and maintain ecosystem services from the land management activities of farmers, ranchers and forest landowners.

The act is a guide for the department’s vision of public 

involvement and support in environmental markets. USFS is an agency of the department, and acts in tandem with the Office of Environmental Markets. 

State and Private Forestry 

Redesign Implementation Council 

In 2008, the council approved new national 

objectives for S&PF. 

Objectives include maintain economic benefits and values of 

trees, connect people to forest stewardship, manage forests to adapt to global climate change. 
87

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into National Forest Service Policy and Operations

Appendix 2

Acronyms

BEST Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Trends

CCF Carbon Capital Fund

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CFLRP Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EMC Ecosystem Management Coordination

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESEF Ecosystem Services Evaluation Framework

FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis

FLP Forest Legacy Program

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

GARP Geospatial Accomplishment Reporting Project

HFPAS Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and Allocation System

IMA Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment

MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MUSYA Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act

NASF National Association of State and Private Foresters

NEEF National Environmental Education Foundation

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESP National Ecosystem Services Partnership

NESST National Ecosystem Services Strategy Team

NFF National Forest Foundation

NFMA National Forest Management Act of 1976

NFS National Forest System

NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

NGO Nongovernmental organization

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act

NRD Natural Resource Damage

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPA Oil Pollution Act

PCAST President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

PES Payment for ecosystem services

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric

PPP Public-Private Partnerships

R&D USFS Research and Development

S&PF USFS State and Private Forestry

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFS USDA Forest Service

WCF Watershed Condition Framework

WO USFS Washington office



Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website 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

1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 1400

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300