United States Department of Agriculture

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-968

December

2018

Evaluating Ecosystem Services 

as Management Outcomes in 

National Forest and Grassland 

Planning Assessments

Delilah Jaworski, Jeffrey D. Kline, Chris Miller, Kawa Ng, Mike Retzlaff, 

Henry Eichman, and Doug Smith 
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.

Authors

Delilah Jaworski is a regional social scientist, and Kawa Ng is a regional economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 

1617 Cole Boulevard, Lakewood, CO 80401; Jeffrey D. Kline is a research forester, 

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

Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Chris Miller and Henry 

Eichman are economists, and Doug Smith is a programmer (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 

14th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024; Mike Retzlaff is an economist, Economic 

Insights of Colorado, LLC, 7924 Eagle Feather Way, Lone Tree, CO 80124.

Cover photo: Castle Lake, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Photo by Jill Henderson.
Abstract

Jaworski, Delilah; Kline, Jeffrey D.; Miller, Chris; Ng, Kawa; Retzlaff, Mike; 

Eichman, Henry; Smith, Doug. 2018. Evaluating Ecosystem Services as 

Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-968. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 38 p.

National forest planning and management traditionally have involved addressing 

a broad spectrum of natural resource issues and ecological conditions to comply 

with forest management regulations and policies. In 2012, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service issued a new forest planning rule requiring that national 

forests and grasslands identify and evaluate information on the ecosystem services 

provided by plan areas from which people benefit as part of the plan assessment 

phase of plan revision. Specifically, planning teams are directed now to identify 

“key” ecosystem services that are both of importance outside the plan area and 

likely to be affected by plan alternatives. The agency’s intent is to integrate ecosystem services into the planning and management process to help ensure forest plans 

produce more beneficial outcomes for the public while meeting the needs of present 

and future generations. In this report, we develop and demonstrate a conceptual 

framework and process that forest planning teams can use or draw upon to address 

ecosystem services during the assessment phase of planning. We provide several 

examples regarding how planning teams might identify key goods and services, as 

well as a worksheet teams might use in their analysis.

Keywords: Ecosystem services, public benefits and costs, National Forest 

System, forest planning, plan revision, assessment process.
Contents

1 Introduction

2 Why Include Ecosystem Services in Forest Planning and Management?

4 2012 Planning Rule Requirements 

8 A Five-Step Process for Evaluating Ecosystem Services in Plan Assessment 

16 Example Applications 

17 Example 1: Fish and Recreational Anglers

19 Example 2: Fish, Case 2

21 Example 3: Air Quality and Scenic Views

23 Example 4: Air Quality, Case 2

25 Example 5: Flood Control

27 Using Information About Key Forest Goods and Services in the Next 

Planning Phases

29 Conclusions and Additional Resources

29 Acknowledgments

30 Literature Cited

32 Appendix 1: Worksheet for Evaluating Forest Goods and Services

34 Appendix 2: Forest Goods and Services Starter List 
1

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

Introduction

National forest planning and management traditionally have involved addressing 

and accounting for a broad spectrum of natural resource issues and ecological 

conditions to comply with forest management regulations and policies. The very 

mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, “To sustain 

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

the needs of present and future generations” (USDA FS 2015b), is broad in scope 

and calls for fairly comprehensive assessment of what the U.S. public gains from 

federal management of national forests and grasslands. To achieve its mission, the 

USDA Forest Service, in 2012, issued a new forest planning rule requiring that 

national forests and grasslands identify and evaluate information on the ecosystem 

services people receive from the plan area, as part of the assessment and development phases of forest plan revisions. 

However, accounting for, evaluating, and communicating the benefits of forest 

management to policymakers and the public has long been a challenge, in part, 

because the forest characteristics and other features from which people benefit often 

are not well defined, or they are difficult to measure, or both (Kline 2006, Kline 

and Mazzotta 2012). The integrity of the forest planning and management processes 

thus depends on forest planning teams and the public developing ways of communicating information about public benefits, so that management options can be 

identified and evaluated in ways the public both understands and trusts. Recognition of this ongoing challenge is a primary factor in the Forest Service’s adoption of 

the concept of ecosystem services as a way to both describe and evaluate potential 

forest management outcomes. In fact, the ecosystem services concept also is part 

of a broader movement, occurring within most, if not all, federal agencies involved 

in environmental and natural resource management, to conduct agency work and 

evaluate performance based on ecosystem services outcomes and how they benefit 

people (e.g., Landers and Nahlik 2013, National Ecosystem Services Partnership 

2016). In some cases, increasing collaboration across agencies is leading to the 

development of approaches that are roughly transferable among multiple agencies 

when they have similar needs.

In this report, we develop a conceptual framework and process that forest 

planning teams can use or draw upon to address ecosystem services during the 

assessment phase of forest planning, as called for in the 2012 planning rule (USDA 

FS 2012) and further clarified by directives encoded in the Forest Service Land 

Management Planning Handbook (USDA FS 2015c). We focus specifically on 

what we will call “forest goods and services” and provide examples of how forest 

Forest planning 

and management 

processes depend 

on forest planning 

teams and the public 

developing ways 

of communicating 

information about 

public benefits.
2

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

goods and services can be identified, the types of information that planning teams 

might collect about them, and how plan components can be designed to enable 

national forests and grasslands to continue to provide forest goods and services 

that the public desires. More broadly, we suggest ways that forest planning teams, 

with public and stakeholder input, could describe how people benefit from national 

forests and their management, and how benefits might change in response to forest 

plan revisions. 

Why Include Ecosystem Services in Forest Planning 

and Management?

During the forest planning process, planning teams are tasked with evaluating 

the likely effects of planning decisions involving the allocation of forest resources 

across alternative uses. Some examples might include determining where offhighway vehicle use could occur, where wilderness could be proposed, or where 

timber cutting could be conducted. Evaluating these effects—including what the 

public might gain or lose from any given plan alternative—implies (1) consideration 

of the tradeoffs among the public benefits produced by the forest under alternative 

plans and (2) the relative worth or value of affected benefits to people. However, 

evaluating tradeoffs and values is complicated because agency staff and the public 

often do not have a clear or shared understanding of the full spectrum of public 

benefits provided by national forests and grasslands. Nor do they often have good 

information about how particular benefits will be affected by plan alternatives over 

time, and how the public will perceive any changes in benefits—whether positive 

or negative. Although some benefits, such as wood products, are fairly easy to 

quantify and value in monetary terms, other benefits, such as endangered species 

or cultural experiences, are more difficult to value. The challenges in describing the 

harder-to-value benefits can create the perception among the public and concerned 

stakeholders that such benefits are not fully accounted for in national forest planning decisions. Mitigating or alleviating such perceptions—by ensuring that an 

array of public benefits are considered in forest planning processes—is a principal 

rationale for the Forest Service’s adoption of the “ecosystem services” concept (e.g., 

Kline et al. 2013: 144–145).

Forest planning involves evaluating and revising desired conditions and objectives across the variety of ecosystems within the plan area. Under the 2012 planning 

rule, these revisions are expected to reflect information about ecosystem services, 

as well as uncertainty about stressors, influencing factors, and concerns about 

resource conditions and trends. Evaluating ecosystem services in forest planning 

therefore can involve the following:
3

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

• Considering a broad set of potentially important or relevant ecosystem 

services as a step in the identification of a subset of key ecosystem services 

with which to help weigh management alternatives.

• Considering the effects of various stressors and influencing factors on the 

provision of, and demand for, ecosystem services. 

• Considering production linkages that characterize the relationships between 

resource conditions that exist within the planning area and the provision of 

those key ecosystem services of concern to or valued by the public.

The agency’s goal is to integrate ecosystem services into the planning process 

to help produce planning decisions that are more meaningful and transparent for 

the public and stakeholders. Ideally, the ecosystem services concept enables a fuller 

consideration of the uses and values of a diverse population of users and other 

beneficiaries, by creating a common language with which to describe how forest 

resources and management decisions enable or provide benefits that affect human 

well-being. The hope is that this will afford planning teams greater opportunities 

to recognize and communicate potential tradeoffs when presenting and comparing 

alternative plans. It may also provide a foundation for developing greater understanding and appreciation among public land managers, nonagency stakeholders 

and stewards, and private landowners from across the broader landscape for how 

each entity contributes to producing benefits often associated solely with national 

forests and grasslands. 

An often heard question about ecosystem services in Forest Service contexts 

is, “How does ecosystem services differ from multiple use?” From our perspective, 

consideration of ecosystem services arguably is a continuation of an evolution in 

the agency’s management philosophy that began with a post-World War II emphasis 

on sustained timber yield, followed by an emphasis on multiple uses, and then 

followed by ecosystem management (e.g., Kline et al. 2013). The specific benefits 

traditionally included among the “multiple uses” considered in the Multiple Use 

Sustained Yield Act (1960)—including timber, water, range, recreation, and fish 

and wildlife—all fall within the broad definition of ecosystem services adopted by 

the Forest Service. Indeed, many economists who have focused on forest management issues, both in the past and present, see little distinction between “ecosystem 

services” and “multiple uses” (e.g., Kline and Mazzotta 2012: 4-5). Thus, the Forest 

Service’s embrace of the ecosystem services concept can be thought of as an expansion on traditional views of multiple use to acknowledge and include a broader 

array of benefits provided by ecosystems, combined with a renewed emphasis on 

communicating to the public the role that management plays in helping to bring 

about these benefits (e.g., Kline et al. 2013: 142).
4

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

2012 Planning Rule Requirements 

The 2012 planning rule (USDA FS 2012) directs responsible officials to identify 

and evaluate existing information about the benefits (or ecosystem services) 

people obtain from the planning area as part of the plan assessment phase of 

plan revision. To meet these requirements, the Forest Service Handbook directs 

planning teams to focus on “key” ecosystem services. Key ecosystem services 

are those that meet two criteria: (1) they are important to people in the broader 

landscape or beyond the plan area itself, and (2) they are likely to be affected by 

the management plan under revision (USDA FS 2015c). The handbook focuses on 

consideration of key ecosystem services rather than identifying and evaluating 

all ecosystem services that may be produced by the plan area. Key ecosystem 

services are inherent to the specific plan area under consideration, whether 

forestwide or for a smaller area within a forest. What may be a key ecosystem 

service for one plan area may not necessarily be a key ecosystem service for 

another plan area.

The 2012 planning rule also directs responsible officials to take ecosystem 

services into account when developing plan components that contribute to 

social and economic sustainability (USDA FS 2012). Similarly, the Forest Service Handbook also directs that key ecosystem services be tracked further in 

the planning process and that plan components must provide for them (USDA 

FS 2015c). Because of this, the list and description of key ecosystem services 

initially identified in the assessment phase can be later modified, expanded, or 

reduced based on information obtained in later phases of the planning process, 

while still adhering to the definition of key services. Such changes might be 

necessary when, for example, new information suggests that a given service 

initially not identified as “key” is later found to be important from a sustainability standpoint. Key ecosystem services may include many of the traditional 

multiple-use benefits associated with the National Forest System (e.g., timber, 

water, forage, recreation). 

The planning directives note that interdisciplinary (or ID) planning teams 

should identify and evaluate available information about each of the identified key 

ecosystem services, including the geographic scale, conditions, and trends of key 

services (USDA FS 2015c). Information should also be evaluated to help describe 

the role of critical ecosystem components, lands outside the plan area, stressors, 

drivers, and socioeconomic conditions in the production of and demand for key 

ecosystem services. Information of this nature can help to address questions about 

key ecosystem services that are useful in the development or revision of alternative 

plan components. Some examples include the following:

The 2012 planning rule 

(USDA FS 2012) directs 

responsible officials to 

identify and evaluate 

existing information 

about the benefits (or 

ecosystem services) 

people obtain from 

the planning area 

as part of the plan 

assessment phase of 

plan revision.
5

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

• Who is using or benefiting from the national forest, what forest resources 

are they using or enjoying, and at what geographic scale? How are these 

uses changing over time? Are there competing or conflicting uses within 

the national forest?

• How have the forest resource conditions and related ecosystem services 

been changing over time?

• How are human activities and management decisions on lands outside the 

plan area affecting the national forest’s ability to provide key ecosystem 

services and benefits?

• How are ecosystem services contributing to local economies and jobs?

The definition of ecosystem services provided in the 2012 planning rule provides a framework for considering the range of benefits that people receive from a 

forest plan area (text box 1). The 2012 planning rule provides substantial flexibility 

about how the planning process is to be conducted and how plans are to be written 

and evaluated to satisfy requirements for addressing ecosystem services. The rule 

does not require that forest plans identify or provide for every ecosystem service 

occurring on a national forest or grassland, nor does it outline guidelines for achieving specific levels of ecosystem services. Distinguishing ecosystem services from 

“multiple uses” also is not required, though planning teams may find that integrating 

the two may be helpful. For these reasons, planning teams may decide to avoid using 

the term ecosystem services if it does not resonate with the public, stakeholders, or 

the planning team itself. For example, planning teams might simply use the terms 

“forest goods and services,” and “forest benefits,” rather than ecosystem services. 

Using alternative terms is allowed as long as they meet the intent of the 2012 planning rule by considering the range of benefits included in the planning rule definition. In this report, for example, we use the term “forest goods and services.” 

The planning rule does not explicitly require quantification of ecosystem 

services, but rather expects some characterization of services in forest assessments. 

Many of the goods and services falling under the “provisioning” and “cultural” 

categories have traditionally been included for consideration under multiple use, and 

so some overlap may exist in how planning teams address each of these. Planning 

teams may find it advantageous to address “regulating” and “supporting services” 

(text box 1) as simply those ecological conditions and processes that help to sustain 

the variety of “provisioning” and “cultural” ecosystem services defined in the 2012 

planning rule. In these cases, however, planning teams should explain the specific 

roles of ecological conditions and processes in providing key provisioning and cultural ecosystem services to ensure that the importance and benefits of different forest resource and program specialist areas are adequately recognized and accounted 
6

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

Text box 1. Operationalizing the Forest Service’s 2012 

planning rule definition of ecosystem services for use in 

plan assessment.

Although researchers, policymakers, and practitioners have adopted various 

definitions of ecosystem services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service’s 2012 planning rule (36 CFR 219.19) defines ecosystem services as 

“benefits people obtain from ecosystems.” These are further delineated following 

categories outlined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005):

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

forage, fiber, and minerals.

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

control; and disease regulation.

3. Supporting services, including pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation, and nutrient cycling. 

4. Cultural services, including educational, aesthetic, spiritual, and cultural 

heritage values; recreational experiences; and tourism opportunities.

Although this classification of ecosystem services can be useful for identifying key services of interest in specific Forest Service planning and management applications, planning teams at their discretion may wish to augment this 

classification, or develop other terms or classification systems for characterizing various forest benefits relevant to their specific forest or application of 

interest. For example, planning teams may want to opt for using a more generic 

“forest goods and services” term in place of “ecosystem services,” as we do 

in this report. It also may be helpful to define ecosystem (or forest) goods and 

services as the specific forest resources, characteristics, or features that directly 

benefit people, such things listed among the “provisioning” and “cultural” 

services categories of the 2012 planning rule definition. Many of the items that 

fall under the provisioning and cultural categories traditionally also fell under 

the scope of multiple uses. We consider “supporting” and “regulating” services 

identified in the 2012 planning rule definition more akin to the ecosystem 

conditions and processes that help to sustain the delivery of provisioning and 

cultural ecosystem services.
7

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

for in the planning process. Ideally, planning teams should strive to identify and 

evaluate “final” goods and services, while underscoring “intermediate” goods and 

services that are critical to sustaining these final goods and services (text box 2).

Lastly, monetary valuation of ecosystem services is not required by the 2012 planning rule. Indeed, some observers have suggested that the Forest Service currently 

may lack sufficient economics expertise to allow for routine monetary valuation of 

ecosystem services in forest planning processes, and that for this reason, the agency 

might best develop reasonable and defensible nonmonetary approaches to evaluating 

ecosystem services (e.g., Kline et al. 2013). However, nothing precludes planning 

teams from considering or referencing monetary values as long as they are defensible 

and consistent with the best available scientific information. Presenting monetary 

Text box 2. Final versus intermediate forest goods and services

An important distinction between different forest goods and services is that some 

are “final,” while others are “intermediate.” Final goods and services are those 

directly consumed, experienced, or enjoyed by users or other beneficiaries, while 

intermediate goods and services are factors that contribute to producing or creating final goods and services. For example, an elk population might be considered 

a final good or service directly enjoyed by hunters or people who enjoy viewing 

elk, while forage produced on a forest might be considered (in the absence of 

a commercial grazing program) an intermediate service that contributes to the 

production of an elk population. Some goods and services can be both intermediate and final. For example, clean water can be a final service when considered 

for its role in a community’s water supply, but also an intermediate service for its 

role in maintaining fish populations directly enjoyed by anglers. Ideally, planning 

teams should strive to identify and evaluate “final” goods and services, as opposed 

to “intermediate” goods and services. Final goods and services are biophysical 

features, quantities, or qualities that require little further translation to make clear 

their relevance or importance to people (Boyd and Krupnick 2009). However, 

identifying intermediate goods and services, and their role in producing final 

goods and services, often can be an effective way for determining and characterizing how different management activities or plan alternatives might influence final 

forest goods and services, and thus affect users and other beneficiaries.
8

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

values for ecosystem services can help to characterize the importance of key ecosystem services relative to other more easily valued benefits. When discussing monetary 

values, planning teams should try to describe the value of the incremental contribution of the national forest or grassland to the production of a given ecosystem service 

(whether positive or negative), and not simply the total value of the ecosystem service 

as a whole. For example, if a planning team were to discuss the value of water supplied by a given forest plan area, ideally it should discuss how much the forest or area 

incrementally contributes to overall supply in the region (e.g., Caldwell et al. 2014) or 

what the incremental value of water increase or decrease resulting from a plan alternative might be. Although, we do not offer specific guidance on monetary valuation for 

ecosystem services, several other resources do. Rosenberger et al. (2017), for example, 

offer data and guidance on monetary values for individual recreation activities. Binder 

et al. (2017) discuss monetary valuation of other ecosystem services of interest in 

Forest Service contexts. A good general reference on valuation is Champ et al. (2017). 

A Five-Step Process for Evaluating Ecosystem Services 

in Plan Assessment 

The five-step process we outline below is intended to help planning teams comply 

with the 2012 planning rule by characterizing how people benefit from a given 

national forest or grassland, and how those benefits might change as a result of 

plan revision. Plan revision consists of (1) assessment; (2) plan revision, including 

the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process; and (3) monitoring. The five-step process we 

outline addresses specifically the ecosystem services requirements in the assessment phase but can provide preparatory information that can serve as a bridge for 

considering ecosystem services in the plan revision and monitoring phases as well. 

We have provided an example worksheet (app. 1) that planning teams could use as 

an aid to completing the five steps. 

Note that this five-step process is a recommendation only. Planning teams and 

other users are free to modify the approach or adopt a different approach altogether, 

to best meet the needs of their particular forest or situation when assessing ecosystem services in forest planning. Also note that our five-step process focuses on how 

planning teams could gather and consider information pertaining to key ecosystem 

services for a given national forest. Although we do not specifically address public 

engagement in our process, planning teams may find some sort of public engagement process useful for identifying and evaluating key ecosystem services. We 

thus encourage planning teams to consider augmenting the five-step process with 

an appropriate public engagement process so that the identification and evaluation 

The five-step process 

we outline below 

is intended to help 

planning teams comply 

with the 2012 planning 

rule by characterizing 

how people benefit 

from a given national 

forest or grassland.
9

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

of key ecosystem services is reasonably representative of public perspectives about 

the forest of concern. Discussions with forest specialists and other staff also may 

be useful. Guidance on public engagement is available in the Forest Service Land 

Management Planning Handbook (USDA FS 2015a), as well as other technical 

advice maintained by the Forest Service’s, National Forest System, Washington 

office, Ecosystem Management Coordination.

Our five-step process is based on a conceptual framework that defines the relationships among a given national forest or grassland, the goods and services it provides, and specific users or other beneficiaries who enjoy those goods and services 

as benefits (fig. 1). The term “beneficiaries” refers to anyone who benefits from the 

national forest or grassland under consideration. National forests and grasslands, 

along with the broader landscape, comprise ecosystem conditions and processes that 

provide forest goods and services (e.g., timber, water, forage, recreation opportunities, etc.). When combined with agency infrastructure—such as roads and trails—

and other private and public goods and services—such as equipment outfitters and 

guide services—these forest goods and services produce benefits to users and other 

beneficiaries (fig. 1). More broadly, these benefits also are associated with factors 

that contribute to social and economic conditions and sustainability, such as local 

jobs, quality of life, education, health and safety, local traditions, among others. 

The basic premise of addressing ecosystem services in forest planning is to develop 

a narrative describing these relationships for “key” forest goods and services and 

how they might be affected by plan revision or other management changes (see text 

box 3, for an example). Each of the five steps is described below with references to 

objectives, approaches, and examples of leading questions.

Agency

infrastructure 

and operations

Forest goods

and services

Other private

and public goods

and services

Users and other

beneficiaries Benefits Ecosystem conditions 

and processes

Social and 

economic 

sustainability 

and conditions:

• jobs

• quality of life

• education

• health and safety

• traditions

• etc.

National forest

or grassland 

and broader

landscape

Figure 1—Relationship among national forests and grasslands, forest goods and services, and users and other beneficiaries.
10

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

Step 1. Develop a common understanding among planning team members about 

how people benefit from the national forest or grassland.

Objective—Use figure 1 to facilitate a discussion among planning staff about 

how different people benefit from the forest goods and services the forest or 

grassland provides. 

Approach—Planning teams should meet together to accomplish this step at the 

beginning of the plan assessment phase. Planning teams should consider and identify relationships among ecosystem conditions and processes, specific forest goods 

and services, and specific users and other beneficiaries, that define pathways by 

Text box 3. Example application of the conceptual framework for fish populations and 

recreational anglers

An example application of the conceptual framework for fish populations and recreational anglers might 

acknowledge the role that wetlands, vegetation, hydrologic function, and riparian conditions and processes 

play in influencing landscape-level organic material and nutrient cycling to produce game fish populations. 

The resulting game fish “service” is augmented by stream access; parking and permitting processes provided 

by the national forest or grassland; as well as perhaps local guide services; and hotel, restaurant, and other 

businesses that cater to the recreational anglers. Together, these ecosystem and agency contributions provide 

benefits to recreational anglers. In a broader sense, gamefish populations help to support jobs and local 

lifestyles. Forest plan components thus have potential to influence these benefits and their broader social and 

economic impacts, by influencing the ecosystem conditions and processes, and agency infrastructure and 

operations that make the game fish service possible.

Game fish

populations

Jobs,

local lifestyles Benefits Organic material 

and cycling

Wetlands,

vegetation,

riparian conditions

Stream access,

parking, permits

Guide services,

hotels, restaurants

Recreational

anglers
11

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

which benefits are produced on or by the forest or grasslands under consideration. 

Further considering how specific benefits relate to social, cultural, and economic 

conditions within communities near the plan area, as well as the broader region 

surrounding the plan area, helps provide a more complete narrative about the 

broader impacts that the forest or grassland might have on social and economic 

sustainability. Input from public engagement processes and forest specialists and 

other staff may be useful.

Leading questions—In accomplishing this step, planning teams may find the following “leading questions” useful for initiating discussion of possible forest goods 

and services, beneficiaries, and benefits among resource specialists assigned to the 

planning team:

• Why is your resource area important to people who use or care about the 

forest or grassland?

• Who cares about or interacts with your particular resource?

• Does your resource area support or sustain other forest goods and services, 

or does it produce forest goods and services that people directly use or from 

which people directly benefit? What would happen if your resource area 

were removed from the ecosystem or severely affected, for example?

Planning teams should not necessarily feel compelled to describe or “fill in” 

every “box” included in figure 1 for each benefit identified. Rather, we suggest 

that planning teams focus instead on identifying each forest good or service in 

combination with a specific user or other beneficiary, as well as how it relates to a 

particular social, cultural, and economic condition. We suspect that many resource 

specialists may at least initially find it easier to identify and describe ecosystem 

conditions and processes. The point of step 1, however, is to encourage resource 

specialists to use figure 1 to develop one or several narratives about how their 

particular resource area and program contributes to providing benefits to specific 

users or other beneficiaries. 

Step 2. Identify a preliminary list of forest goods and services and associated 

beneficiaries.

Objective—Drawing on step 1 outcomes, for each resource area develop a preliminary list of forest goods and services and their users or other beneficiaries. Also, 

develop a list of the key linkages between ecosystem conditions and processes and 

the delivery of each forest good or service, as well as a list of corresponding social, 

cultural, or economic conditions that are most directly affected by each forest good 

or service and beneficiary. 
12

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

Approach—Convene an interdisciplinary team meeting to brainstorm a preliminary 

list of users or other beneficiaries. Ideally, this step would include considering input 

from the public and stakeholders. We have provided a “starter list” (app. 2) of potential 

beneficiaries that interdisciplinary teams might use to initiate consideration of their 

preliminary list. The starter list is adapted from a typology of ecosystem services developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Landers and Nahlik 2013) and 

thus begins to provide some consistency across federal agencies. Meeting organizers might consider providing the starter list to meeting attendees before the interdisciplinary team meeting, so that team members can begin to consider potential users 

and other beneficiaries they might include in the assessment. Interdisciplinary teams 

might also refer to prior planning documents, such as EIS or analysis of the management situation documents. This step is intended to identify a list of possible forest 

goods and services that could be included in the assessment. The process for identifying key goods and services for actual inclusion in the assessment occurs as step 3.

Leading questions: 

• Who uses, interacts with, or experiences, and therefore benefits from, the 

forest or grassland under consideration?

• What individuals, users, groups, organizations, businesses, or communities 

benefit?

• From which specific forest resources, ecosystem characteristics, or features 

do they benefit and why?

Although this step focuses on identifying forest goods and services, and beneficiaries, the accompanying worksheets (app. 1) provide opportunities for identifying 

ecosystem conditions and processes, as well as agency infrastructure and operations that contribute to or complement production of forest goods and services. 

Step 3. Refine the list of forest goods and services (and beneficiaries) to include 

only “key” forest goods and services.

Objective—Using the initial list developed in step 2, select those forest goods and 

services that the planning team considers as “key” goods and services, on which to 

focus for the assessment (and ultimately the rest of the planning process). 

Approach—Convene the interdisciplinary team to distill the initial list of forest 

goods and services to a list of key goods and services. The responsible official may 

elect to engage the public and stakeholders to help identify key forest goods and services. Also, specific team members or resource specialists likely have an interest in, or 

a desire to focus on particular forest goods and services within the plan area, by virtue 

of the specific program area in which they work. Prior to the full interdisciplinary 
13

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

team meeting, it may be useful to have resource specialists work together who share 

an interest in or focus on particular forest goods and services, to identify a candidate 

list of possible key goods and services related to their common interest or focus. This 

candidate list can then be refined further based on evidence found in prior planning 

documents, and new input from other interdisciplinary team members and the public. 

Leading questions—Criteria that interdisciplinary teams should consider when distilling the initial list developed in step 2 to a list of “key” forest goods and services include the two criteria from the 2012 planning rule, which we have expanded on below:

1. Which forest goods and services are important outside the plan area itself, 

in areas of influence, or the broader landscape?

▪ Do members of the public use and enjoy the good or service? Have they 

expressed a desire to sustain or increase this service?

▪ Have members of the public voiced concerns regarding decreased availability of the good or service?

▪ Do nearby communities rely on the good or service to support livelihoods, cultural practices, subsistence, or other factors that affect their 

quality of life?

▪ Have published plans, policies, or other documents from government 

or nongovernmental sources specifically emphasized the importance of 

the good or service from the plan area?

▪ Are there few (or no) alternative ways to obtain the good or service in 

nearby communities or broader landscape?

2. Which forest goods and services are most likely to be influenced by the 

management plan?

▪ Is it within the legal authority of the planning unit to influence the 

good or service?

▪ Does the Forest Service have the capability to influence the good or 

service? Is the good or service “at risk” from some type of threat?

▪ Could the plan reasonably establish plan components that would lead 

to policies, projects, or other activities that would influence the good 

or service?

▪ Does management of the plan area reasonably have the capability to 

influence the good or service?

Ultimately, the interdisciplinary team should develop a list of key forest goods 

and services that (1) reasonably represents the range of uses and benefits experienced 

by users and other beneficiaries of the forests or grasslands under consideration and 

(2) could be affected by the plan or management action under development. 
14

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

If the list of key goods and services is thought to be too lengthy, interdisciplinary teams might consider grouping some goods and services based on 

similarities in how they might be influenced or affected by plan decisions. For 

example, recreational opportunities for backpacking, cross-country skiing, and 

hiking (e.g., dispersed recreation) may all be similarly affected by particular plan 

decisions, and hence could possibly be grouped together. Whether a given forest 

good or service ultimately is identified as key can be recorded on the worksheet 

provided in appendix 1.

Step 4. Identify available information for characterizing key forest goods and services, beneficiaries, and their broader social, cultural, or economic influence.

Objective—Identify available information, if any, for describing and, if possible, 

measuring the key forest goods and services identified, including related ecosystem 

conditions and processes, users or other beneficiaries, and any notable relationships 

to social, cultural, and economic conditions.

Approach—This step might be accomplished in planning team meetings, by individual resource specialists, or a combination of the two. Consultation with “human 

dimensions” specialists (e.g., regional social scientists, tribal liaisons, and heritage 

program managers, among others) is recommended for identifying information 

about users and other beneficiaries, as well as potential relationships with social, 

cultural, and economic impacts or conditions. The 2012 planning rule and directives 

emphasizes relying on readily available information and taking advantage of indicators and measures already being compiled by other resource, program, or multipleuse sections of the ongoing assessment. The goal is to gather readily available information that can be used to develop as complete a narrative as is possible about the 

importance of each key forest good or service to people and how the good or service 

might be affected by the subsequent plan revision and its management actions.

Leading questions—for identifying information and indicator needs include:

• What additional information is needed that is not already provided in 

other resource or program sections of the ongoing assessment that would 

help to describe:

▪ What levels of key forest goods or services is the forest or grassland providing?

▪ What levels of key goods and services do users or other beneficiaries 

rely on, need, or otherwise desire?

▪ What ecosystem conditions or processes support the production of 

these key goods and services?
15

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

▪ What data and indicators are readily available for quantifying changes 

in the availability of key forest goods and services, as well as the levels 

that users and other beneficiaries would like to have made available?

• Can data and indicators, both spatial and nonspatial, help you describe 

the following:

▪ Forest goods and services, and users and other beneficiaries at an 

appropriate geographic scale?

▪ Current conditions, trends, and likely future conditions over time?

▪ Key ecosystem conditions or processes, drivers, or stressors affecting 

the availability of, and user demand for, key goods and services?

• Are indicators sensitive to changes in plan components?

• Are there gaps in available information for characterizing key forest goods 

and services, and if so, what are they?

Available data and other information for describing users and other beneficiaries, and ecosystem conditions and processes that contribute to providing key forest 

goods and services can be noted on the worksheet provided in appendix 1.

Step 5. Summarize key forest goods and services in the assessment document.

Objective—Use information from steps 1 through 4 to prepare assessment documents that address key forest goods and services. 

Approach—Two possible approaches to completing this step are (1) assign individual resource specialists the task of drafting portions of the assessment for goods 

and services and beneficiaries relevant to their particular resource areas; or (2) an 

“ecosystem services point person” can be assigned to coordinate input from each 

resource specialist and compile an assessment section based on their input. 

Planning teams will note that there are considerable overlaps between forest 

goods and services requirements and other assessment requirements outlined in the 

2012 planning rule. For example, the assessment section addressing multiple uses 

may cover some provisioning services included among the list of key forest goods 

and services defined in the process just presented. Similarly, the section addressing 

recreation may cover some of the key cultural services. The task for the planning 

team is to effectively integrate information about key forest goods and services 

collected from steps 1 through 4 with the other assessment topic areas to which 

they relate. This can be done by summarizing or referencing information from other 

sections of the assessment. The intent is to fully embrace the key forest goods and 

services concept as the connecting theme of the assessment document, to better 

integrate resource areas by addressing the ways in which the public benefits from 
16

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

the national forest or grassland and how benefits rely on a combination of different 

resource or program areas. The leading questions outlined in this step may be useful for structuring, summarizing, and integrating information about key goods and 

services provided by the plan area.

Leading questions—for summarizing forest goods and services in the assessment 

documents:

• How is each key good or service related to a specific resource area or areas?

▪ What are the current conditions and trends concerning these resource 

areas, and how do these affect the delivery of each key good or service?

▪ How do conditions and trends on the broader landscape (outside the 

authority of the Forest Service) affect the delivery of each key good 

or service?

• How is each key good or service used or valued by users and other beneficiaries?

▪ What are the current locations, conditions, and trends concerning uses 

and users, and how do they affect the current and future delivery of and 

demand for each key good or service?

Based on the above information, discuss any consistencies or mismatches 

between current uses (or demands) and the availability of each key good or service. 

For example, if the resource base for a given forest good or service is declining, 

that may not support an increasing user population for that good or service, and this 

concern should be addressed.

Example Applications 

The importance of particular forest goods and services are expected to emerge 

from the public participation process during the assessment phase of forest plan 

revision. In some cases, an assessment team may identify tentative key forest goods 

and services, when particular goods or services are recognized as important, but 

there is uncertainty about whether the plan revision is likely to have a meaningful 

effect on it. Ultimately, the determination as to which forest goods and services are 

key goods and services and which plan components are needed to provide for each 

key good or service is made in conjunction with the approval of the responsible 

official. The following examples describe hypothetical scenarios illustrating cases 

where particular forest goods or services might be considered as key forest goods or 

services and when they might not, as well as potential plan components appropriate 

for addressing those forest goods or services.

The following 

examples describe 

hypothetical scenarios 

illustrating cases 

where particular forest 

goods or services 

might be considered 

as key forest goods 

or services and when 

they might not, as 

well as potential 

plan components 

appropriate for 

addressing those 

forest goods or 

services.
17

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

Example 1: Fish and Recreational Anglers

The circumstances—On a particular national forest, hydrologic and riparian 

conditions support a relatively stable population of a species of game fish, and an 

active and popular recreational fishery drawing anglers locally and from afar (fig. 

2). Several local businesses cater to the recreational anglers, including local guide 

services, hotels, and restaurants. 

Is the game fish population a key forest good or service on this particular national forest?—Given the popularity of the recreational fishery, the responsible 

official identifies the game fish population as an important forest good or service 

provided by riparian conditions on this national forest. Public and stakeholder comments about maintaining opportunities to access the fishery, including concerns 

about occasional overcrowding and limitations on parking, reinforce this perception. The national forest in recent years has been considering improving access by 

expanding the number of access points, while also striving to protect the riparian 

corridor from overuse. Thus, plan components have the potential to influence access to the game fish, and their habitat is of interest outside of the plan area. The 

responsible official reasonably concludes that the game fish is one of this national 

forest’s key forest goods or services.

What information is identified and evaluated in the assessment?—Information 

is identified and evaluated pertaining to the locations of game fish populations and 

their habitat conditions, as well as the access points used by recreational anglers 

and the levels and quality of use throughout the year. 

How is this key forest good or service evaluated during the planning process?—In the initial development of the proposed plan components and alternatives, 

the responsible official considers how the plan would affect recreational access to 

the game fish stocks, and the degree of protection or mitigation related to heavy 

visitation and use of the riparian corridor by anglers. 

What plan components provide for this key forest good or service?—In this 

case, the plan will have components that provide improved access to the game fish 

populations, and the implementation of measures to protect streambanks from 

heavy use at the most popular access points. Components will also address how to 

sustain water quality and flows. 
18

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

Step 3—Identify which forest goods and services are key services

Key forest good or service 

identification: Group or sort (optional): 

Is it (1) important outside the plan area and (2) likely to be 

influenced by the management plan?

Use this column to group or sort like categories of forest goods 

or services, or beneficiaries

Yes

Step 2—Identify users or beneficiaries, and forest goods and services

Users and other 

beneficiaries:

Forest goods and 

services:

Agency infrastructure 

and operations:

Ecosystem conditions 

and processes:

Importance of forest 

good or service to 

beneficiary:

Who interacts with 

or experiences, and 

therefore benefits 

from, the forest good 

or service?

From what forest 

resource, feature, 

or characteristic 

do they benefit?

What does the agency 

provide or permit that 

enables these benefits?

How do ecosystem 

conditions and processes 

provide for the forest good 

or service?

Why do the 

beneficiaries care 

about the forest 

good or service?

Recreational anglers Game fish 

population

Access, parking, permits Hydrologic function (water 

storage and filtration), 

organic material and 

nutrient cycling

Recreation, 

food, business 

opportunities (for 

guides and other 

suppliers)

Game fish

populations

Jobs,

local lifestyles Benefits Organic material 

and cycling

Wetlands,

vegetation,

riparian conditions

Stream access,

parking, permits

Guide services,

hotels, restaurants

Recreational

anglers

Step 4—What information can be used to describe beneficiaries and forest goods and services?

Information for characterizing users and other beneficiaries:

What information can be used to describe the use or demand 

among beneficiaries for the forest good or service? Provide 

data source for each possible indicator or “unknown” for no 

indicators.

Ecosystem conditions and processes:

What information can be used to describe the availability 

of the forest good or service? Provide data source for 

each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.

Trends in parking or other permits issued; National Visitor Use 

Monitoring data; visitor feedback

Stream-miles providing different qualities of habitat 

condition

Step 1—Develop a common understanding about how people benefit

Figure 2—Completing steps 1 though 4 for a hypothetical game fish population (example 1)
19

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

Example 2: Fish, Case 2

The circumstances—On a different national forest, there are unique spawning 

areas for an anadromous fish species. This species has been listed as threatened 

and a portion of the national forest has been identified as critical habitat subject to 

a number of specific restrictions associated with managing habitat for the species 

(fig. 3). Although current management of the plan area already is consistent with the 

threatened species designation, the plan itself has not yet been revised to align with 

the critical habitat designation.

Is the anadromous fish species a key forest good or service on this particular national forest?—The responsible official is convinced that the anadromous 

fish population is an important ecosystem service provided by habitat on this 

particular forest. Public comments and concerns about the species have further 

reinforced this perception. However, beyond adjusting and complying with provisions associated with the critical habitat designation, the responsible official is 

not convinced that anticipated changes in the plan are likely to affect the fish or 

its spawning habitat, even as the fish species is considered to be of significant 

importance to the public and stakeholders. The responsible official feels that the 

critical habitat designation already provides necessary support for the fish and 

that further detailed examination during plan revision will detract from completing the revision in a timely manner. However, given the importance of the resource to the public and stakeholders, the responsible official decides to defer a 

determination as to whether the anadromous fish stock is a key ecosystem service 

until the planning team has begun drafting plan alternatives and evaluating environmental impacts.

What information is identified and evaluated in the assessment?—Existing 

information provided by the forest biologist is identified and evaluates the locations 

of the anadromous fish species, its habitat, and the specific conditions required to 

sustain the species, as well as habitat conditions, trends, and any threats or other 

factors influencing its population (e.g., invasive species).

How is this key forest good or service evaluated during the planning process?—In the initial development of the proposed plan components and alternatives, 

the responsible official examines how the plan would affect the anadromous fish 

population and its habitat beyond meeting the basic requirements associated with 

critical habitat designation. The EIS would describe differences in the outcomes for 

the species among the alternatives. Depending on the outcome, the responsible official may conclude one of two ways: 
20

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

Step 3—Identify which forest goods and services are key services

Key forest good or service identification: Group or sort (optional): 

Is it (1) important outside the plan area and (2) likely to be 

influenced by the management plan?

Use this column to group or sort like categories of forest goods 

or services, or beneficiaries

Outcome to be determined by environmental impact statement

Step 2—Identify users or beneficiaries, and forest goods and services

Users and other 

beneficiaries:

Forest goods and 

services:

Agency infrastructure 

and operations:

Ecosystem conditions 

and processes:

Importance of forest 

good or service to 

beneficiary:

Who interacts with 

or experiences, and 

therefore benefits 

from, the forest good 

or service?

From what forest 

resource, feature, 

or characteristic 

do they benefit?

What does the agency 

provide or permit that 

enables these benefits?

How do ecosystem 

conditions and processes 

provide for the forest good 

or service?

Why do the 

beneficiaries care 

about the forest 

good or service?

People who care about 

protecting threatened 

species, American 

Indian tribes 

Threatened fish 

population

Compliance with riparian 

management restrictions 

and water quality 

guidelines mandated by 

listing

Organic material and nutrient 

cycling; water storage and 

filtration, fish passage; may 

be adversely affected by 

invasive species.

Compliance with 

federal regulations 

regarding listing

Benefits Organic material 

and cycling

Wetlands,

vegetation,

riparian conditions

Critical habitat

designation,

management

Threatened

fish species

Volunteer riparian

restoration

activities

People who

care about

protecting

threatened

species

Education,

traditions,

quality of life

Step 4—What information can be used to describe beneficiaries and forest goods and services?

Information for characterizing users and other beneficiaries:

What information can be used to describe the use or demand 

among beneficiaries for the forest good or service? Provide data 

source for each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.

Ecosystem conditions and processes:

What information can be used to describe the availability 

of the forest good or service? Provide data source for 

each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.

Number and nature of public comments addressing the threatened 

species, consultation with tribes

Locations of species, continuous stream-miles providing 

different qualities of habitat, both threatened and invasive 

fish population estimates

Step 1—Develop a common understanding about how people benefit

Figure 3—Completing steps 1 through 4 for a hypothetical threatened fish population (example 2).
21

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

1. The anadromous fish species is a key ecosystem service if there are different outcomes for the species that result from the type and organization of 

plan components in the different alternatives.

2. The current critical habitat designation provides all that the plan area can 

reasonably do to protect the fish species, and additional plan components 

for this anadromous fish are not likely to be effective or necessary. In the 

latter case, the anadromous fish species would not be identified as a key 

ecosystem service in the context of plan revision on this particular forest.

What plan components provide for this key forest good or service?—In either outcome, the plan will have components that provide for the anadromous fish 

species, at the very least by referring to requirements associated with the critical 

habitat designation. These components likely would include desired conditions and 

standards and guidelines intended to aid in recovery and maintenance of the fish.

Example 3: Air Quality and Scenic Views

The circumstances—Another national forest receives significant numbers of visitors during the summer and fall seasons, attracted to its scenic views and fall foliage, and this use is a major factor influencing management (fig. 4a). The national 

forest also is working to restore the ecological integrity of the forest through greater 

use of prescribed fire, which can result in occasional reductions in air quality within 

the forest that diminishes the views of fall foliage from roads, trails, and other access points that forest visitors can enjoy on some days. 

Is air quality a key forest good or service for this particular national forest?—

In this particular situation, visits to the national forest not only benefit visitors but 

also benefit several private businesses outside of the plan area who cater to these 

same visitors (fig. 4). Additionally, the public has voiced concern about maintaining 

air quality during peak visitor periods, particularly in the fall. Given these factors, 

the responsible official might reasonably conclude that air quality is a key ecosystem service that is relevant for consideration in plan revision. Plan components—

specifically those influencing management that includes prescribed burning—have 

the potential to significantly affect air quality, and air quality is of significant interest outside the plan area. 

However, alternatively, the responsible official might instead identify fall 

foliage as the relevant forest good or service. In this case, the planning team would 

acknowledge the dependency of fall foliage viewing on air quality and access to 

scenic views. Moreover, planning staff would also acknowledge the influence of vegetation management (e.g., prescribed burning) and its effect on air quality, which in 
22

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

Step 3—Identify which forest goods and services are key services

Key forest good or service identification: Group or sort (optional): 

Is it (1) important outside the plan area and (2) likely to be 

influenced by the management plan?

Use this column to group or sort like categories of forest goods 

or services, or beneficiaries

Yes

Step 2—Identify users or beneficiaries, and forest goods and services

Users and other 

beneficiaries:

Forest goods and 

services:

Agency infrastructure 

and operations:

Ecosystem conditions 

and processes:

Importance of forest 

good or service to 

beneficiary:

Who interacts with 

or experiences, and 

therefore benefits 

from, the forest good 

or service?

From what forest 

resource, feature, 

or characteristic 

do they benefit?

What does the agency 

provide or permit that 

enables these benefits?

How do ecosystem 

conditions and processes 

provide for the forest good 

or service?

Why do the 

beneficiaries care 

about the forest 

good or service?

Hikers, bikers, and 

other visitors who 

enjoy the scenic 

views

Fall foliage; air 

quality

Forest roads, trails, 

and other access 

points, parking, traffic 

enforcement; prescribed 

burning

Forest vegetation health, 

seasonal changes in tree 

foliage; air quality 

Enjoyment of 

physical activity 

or family outing 

featuring scenic 

views 

Benefits

Education,

traditions,

quality of life

Hikers, bikers,

drivers,

other visitors

who enjoy

viewing fall

foliage

Prescribed burning;

roads, trails,

other access points

Air quality and

views of foliage

Hotels, restaurants,

and other 

tourist services

Seasonal changes

in foliage Forest vegetation,

expansive views

Step 4—What information can be used to describe beneficiaries and forest goods and services?

Information for characterizing users and other beneficiaries:

What information can be used to describe the use or demand 

among beneficiaries for the forest good or service? Provide data 

source for each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.

Ecosystem conditions and processes:

What information can be used to describe the availability 

of the forest good or service? Provide data source for 

each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.

Number of visitors during fall foliage season, versus the rest of the 

year, National Visitor Use Monitoring data

Data describing air quality throughout the year, particularly 

on days of prescribed burning; extent and persistence of 

relevant tree species producing fall foliage 

Step 1—Develop a common understanding about how people benefit

Figure 4a—Completing steps 1 through 4 for an air quality example and its impact on scenic views (example 3).
23

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

turn influences fall foliage viewing. In this way, air quality arguably can be viewed 

as an intermediate service necessary for providing the final service of scenic views 

of fall foliage, while the various access points are provided by agency infrastructure 

and operations. Following this perspective, plan components, including prescribed 

burning, have the potential to significantly reduce air quality and thus diminish 

scenic views of fall foliage, and these reductions are of interest outside the plan area. 

What information is identified and evaluated in the assessment?—Information 

pertaining to air quality and its impact on scenic views of fall foliage that could be 

evaluated during plan revision might include data pertaining to air quality levels 

throughout the year and their relationship to use of prescribed fire. Additionally, the 

planning team might consider the cost-effectiveness of prescribed fire versus mechanical treatments in achieving desired vegetative conditions, relative to visitation 

patterns and access points throughout the year, to determine whether prescribed fire 

activities could be conducted during periods of lower visitation or at specific locations.

How is this key forest good or service evaluated during the planning process?—In the initial development of proposed plan components and alternatives, 

the responsible official seeks to find a solution that will maintain air quality without significantly diminishing scenic views of fall foliage, while allowing for appropriate vegetation treatments. One alternative heavily emphasizes use of prescribed 

fire to achieve desired vegetation conditions, another emphasizes mechanical 

treatments, while a third and preferred alternative emphasizes a mix of treatments 

without use of prescribed fire between June and November. The EIS describes the 

changes in air quality and visibility that would occur under these alternatives.

What plan components provide for this key forest good or service?—The desired condition explicitly describes that the forest landscape is visibly attractive and 

one that draws visitors to the area to enjoy the scenic vistas, especially during late 

summer and fall foliage seasons. A forestwide guideline excludes the use of prescribed fire between June and November from specific locations. 

Example 4: Air Quality, Case 2

The circumstances—A different national forest is located in a region where air 

quality is widely known to suffer the effects of air pollution from sources external 

to the forest. This national forest has only a very small prescribed fire program 

connected with its limited silvicultural activities, and so does not substantially 

influence air quality within the broader plan area (fig. 4b). Additionally, public participation processes connected with the assessment have resulted in few comments 

or suggestions regarding air quality.
24

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

Step 1—Develop a common understanding about how people benefit

Step 3—Identify which forest goods and services are key services

Key forest good or service identification: Group or sort (optional): 

Is it (1) important outside the plan area and (2) likely to be 

influenced by the management plan?

Use this column to group or sort like categories of forest goods 

or services, or beneficiaries

No

Step 2—Identify users or beneficiaries, and forest goods and services

Users and other 

beneficiaries:

Forest goods and 

services:

Agency infrastructure 

and operations:

Ecosystem conditions 

and processes:

Importance of forest 

good or service to 

beneficiary:

Who interacts with 

or experiences, and 

therefore benefits 

from, the forest good 

or service?

From what forest 

resource, feature, 

or characteristic 

do they benefit?

What does the agency 

provide or permit that 

enables these benefits?

How do ecosystem 

conditions and processes 

provide for the forest good 

or service?

Why do the 

beneficiaries care 

about the forest 

good or service?

Forest visitors Air quality within 

the forest and the 

region

Forest management has 

limited impact

Forest itself has little impact 

relative to activities in 

broader region

Health, enjoyment 

of scenic views 

within the forest 

and of the region 

Step 4—What information can be used to describe beneficiaries and forest goods and services?

Information for characterizing users and other beneficiaries:

What information can be used to describe the use or demand 

among beneficiaries for the forest good or service? Provide data 

source for each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.

Ecosystem conditions and processes:

What information can be used to describe the availability 

of the forest good or service? Provide data source for 

each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.

Number of visitors during fall foliage season, versus the rest of the 

year, National Visitor Use Monitoring data

Data describing air quality throughout the year, particularly 

on days of prescribed burning; extent and persistence of 

relevant tree species producing fall foliage 

Figure 4b—Completing steps 1 through 4 for an air quality example and its impact on scenic views (example 4).

Benefits

Education,

traditions,

quality of life

Hikers, bikers,

drivers,

other visitors

who enjoy

viewing fall

foliage

Prescribed burning;

roads, trails,

other access points

Air quality and

views of foliage

Hotels, restaurants,

and other 

tourist services

Seasonal changes

in foliage Forest vegetation,

expansive views
25

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

Is air quality a key forest good or service for this particular national forest?—

In this case, the responsible official on this forest decides not to include air quality 

among its key forest goods and services. Although air quality is of importance to 

the broader plan area, the impact that this particular national forest can have on improving or reducing that air quality is limited, given the small role that prescribed 

fire plays in the overall management of the forest. 

Implication—When a given forest good or service is determined to not be a key 

service, there is no need for the planning team to provide plan components for 

that service in the plan. There would, however, still need to be an evaluation of 

air quality in the EIS, which would essentially indicate that there is no meaningful change to air quality anticipated as a result of the management alternatives 

being considered for plan revision. The planning team may also need to document, either in the planning record or the assessment chapter itself, that air quality was considered during the assessment phase but determined to be a non-key 

good or service.

Example 5: Flood Control

The circumstances—When substantial rainfall events occur on one national forest, there can be severe flooding downstream of the plan area that affects several 

towns and a small city. Climate change projections suggest more intense storms are 

likely to exacerbate this problem in the future, leading to greater flooding. There 

have also been suggestions from the public that this national forest could reduce the 

magnitude and impacts of these flood events by restoring wetlands that would act as 

reservoirs that would slow potential runoff (fig. 5).

Is flood control a key forest good or service on this particular national forest?—The responsible official concludes that flooding is an important issue downstream and outside of the plan area, though the impact of flood events, when they 

occur, appears to be fairly localized. Flood control thus meets the first key ecosystem service criterion—that it be important to people in the broader landscape or 

beyond the plan area itself. However, the responsible official is unsure about the 

capability of the plan revision to do much to mitigate the flooding risk, and thus 

is uncertain about whether flood control meets the second key ecosystem service 

criterion—that it likely will be affected by the management plan under revision. 

Therefore, as part of the assessment, the responsible official requests an evaluation of existing information related to wetland or floodplain restoration within this 

national forest. The responsible official concludes that flood control may be a key 

ecosystem service, if management alternatives can be designed that are likely to 

substantially reduce flood risk. The outcome of the effects analysis will ultimately 

determine whether flood control is identified as a key forest good or service on this 

particular national forest.
26

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

Step 3—Identify which forest goods and services are key services

Key forest good or service identification: Group or sort (optional): 

Is it (1) important outside the plan area and (2) likely to be 

influenced by the management plan?

Use this column to group or sort like categories of forest goods 

or services, or beneficiaries

To be determined

Step 2—Identify users or beneficiaries, and forest goods and services

Users and other 

beneficiaries:

Forest goods and 

services:

Agency infrastructure 

and operations:

Ecosystem conditions 

and processes:

Importance of forest 

good or service to 

beneficiary:

Who interacts with 

or experiences, and 

therefore benefits 

from, the forest good 

or service?

From what forest 

resource, feature, 

or characteristic 

do they benefit?

What does the agency 

provide or permit that 

enables these benefits?

How do ecosystem 

conditions and processes 

provide for the forest good 

or service?

Why do the 

beneficiaries care 

about the forest 

good or service?

Downstream 

homeowners and 

businesses

Flood control Forest management, 

particularly in riparian 

zones

Vegetation, wetlands, flood 

plains, infiltration, water 

uptake and storage 

Protection of 

property, health, 

and safety 

Benefits

Property

protection,

health, safety

Downstream

homeowners

and businesses

Vegetation

management,

wetlands restoration

Flood

control

Local regulations

influencing development

and water retention

Infiltration,

retention, storage

Forest vegetation

and soils, wetlands

Step 4—What information can be used to describe beneficiaries and forest goods and services?

Information for characterizing users and other beneficiaries:

What information can be used to describe the use or demand 

among beneficiaries for the forest good or service? Provide data 

source for each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.

Ecosystem conditions and processes:

What information can be used to describe the availability 

of the forest good or service? Provide data source for 

each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.

Number of downstream property owners affected, flood-zone 

development trends, data on past flood events, impacts on lands 

valued by users (habitats for game species, recreation areas, etc.)

Data concerning infiltration and storage capacity of national 

forest lands; relative contributions of forestlands to 

streamflow

Step 1—Develop a common understanding about how people benefit

Figure 5—Completing steps 1 through 4 for a flood control example (example 5).
27

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

What information is identified and evaluated in the assessment?—Existing information is evaluated in the assessment that pertains to the severity and patterns of 

past flood events, and precipitation rates and trends in light of available information 

pertaining to projected climate change. Opportunities for wetland and floodplain 

restoration also are examined and evaluated to determine whether there is substantial potential for such efforts to mitigate flooding risk.

How is this key forest good or service evaluated during the planning process?—

During the initial development of plan alternatives, the EIS examines the issue of 

flood control. This includes the likely nature of future flood events and specifically how one alternative that emphasizes wetland restoration is likely to influence 

streamflow and flooding in the future. One of two outcomes is possible:

1. The analysis reveals that a reasonable program of wetland restoration can be 

accomplished within the fiscal capability of the forest, and likely would substantially reduce future downstream flood impacts. With this outcome, the 

responsible official concludes that flood control is a key ecosystem service.

2. The analysis reveals that only a very significant commitment of funds toward 

wetland restoration, well beyond the current fiscal capability of the planning 

unit, would lead to any appreciable reduction in the magnitude of flood events. 

With this outcome, the responsible official concludes that management by the 

forest would be unable to appreciably reduce flooding and so the responsible 

official concludes that flood control is not a key ecosystem service.

In the case of outcome 1, flood control would be given further consideration in 

the plan revision process.

What plan components provide for this key forest good or service?—In the case 

of outcome 1, in which flood control is identified as a key ecosystem service, the 

desired condition explicitly describes the desired role of the plan area’s wetlands in 

providing for downstream flood control. Objectives seek to identify an acreage goal 

for restored or new wetlands, consistent with the unit’s fiscal capability.

Using Information About Key Forest Goods and 

Services in the Next Planning Phases

The 2012 planning rule mandates that forest plans guide management of National 

Forest System lands so they are ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and 

economic sustainability. Forest goods and services are important considerations when 

evaluating a plan area’s contribution to social and economic sustainability. Following 

the assessment phase, planning teams should anticipate addressing how plan components provide for key forest goods and services through a variety of resource and program areas. Relevant resource and program areas should be addressed in an integrated 

fashion to ensure they work together in providing forest goods and services. Planning 

Following the 

assessment phase, 

planning teams 

should anticipate 

addressing how plan 

components provide 

for key forest goods 

and services through 

a variety of resource 

and program areas. 
28

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

teams should also anticipate demonstrating how alternative plan components, in aggregate, provide for alternative ecological conditions, and how those conditions produce 

different levels of key forest goods and services. Although the manner in which forest 

goods and services affect social and economic conditions may be uncertain, planning 

teams should attempt to demonstrate how alternative levels of forest goods and services 

influence social and economic conditions and opportunities over time, without committing to providing specific social or economic conditions. Planning teams have flexibility 

in how they might demonstrate the contributions of forest goods and services, and 

potential impacts, to social and economic conditions during plan revision.

Many plan components may not appear to explicitly target forest goods and 

services. In fact, some plan components may occur in various resource-specific 

sections of the plan not commonly associated with forest goods and services or 

economic and social conditions. Examples might include fire management and 

infrastructure. However, the role of such plan components may become more apparent after key forest goods and services are identified in the assessment and where 

planning teams can demonstrate linkages between resource areas, management, 

and benefits to people. The identification of key forest goods and services, and their 

users and other beneficiaries, during the assessment phase of planning can aid in this 

process. Ideally, making such connections will enable planning teams to demonstrate the integrated resource management and ecosystem services goals envisioned 

in the 2012 planning rule. Plan components do not need to be designed explicitly to 

address each specific key forest goods and services, so long as there is a clear linkage between each of the key forest goods and services and plan components.

The Forest Service Handbook (USDA FS 2015c) provides several considerations (or leading questions) to aid planning teams in developing plan components 

that provide levels of forest goods and services that contribute to social and economic sustainability:

• What forest goods and services contributions are needed or desired from 

the plan area to support social, cultural, and economic conditions?

• Will the plan area, under management identified in the plan, be able to sustain these contributions?

• How will plan components influence the contributions of the plan area to 

social and economic sustainability?

• How will the plan affect social, economic, and cultural conditions in the 

plan area(s) of influence and the broader landscape? Will the plan adversely 

affect or benefit minority or low-income populations?

• Will the plan be able to sustain the plan area’s contributions to social, cultural, and economic conditions under the reasonably foreseeable risks and 

uncertainties affecting the plan area, the area of influence, and the broader 

landscape?
29

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

• Are the plan components related to contributions to social and economic 

sustainability well integrated with the plan components that provide for 

ecological sustainability, including those that provide for ecosystem integrity and species diversity?

These questions frame the relevant dimensions of social, cultural, and economic considerations that not only facilitate development of plan components, 

but also the effects analysis. Adequately evaluating these considerations may 

call for the involvement of the public and stakeholders, and planning teams are 

encouraged to obtain such input, to the extent that is feasible, throughout the plan 

revision process. 

Conclusions and Additional Resources

Although we have proposed a specific process that forest planning teams might use 

to describe public benefits, we stress that there is no single recommended procedure 

for addressing forest goods and services during assessment, plan revision, or monitoring phases of national forest planning. Planning teams and responsible public 

officials continue to have the flexibility to adopt planning procedures, methods, and 

public engagement strategies they feel best suit the needs of their particular national 

forest or grassland. In addition to this report, planning teams and others interested 

in addressing ecosystem services might find additional resources on potential 

approaches and methods of analysis in the following resources:

• Technical guidance (e.g., technical advice bulletins) available from the 

National Forest System, Washington office, Ecosystem Management 

Coordination website.

• Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J. 2012. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services in the management of public lands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-865. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p. 

• National Ecosystem Services Partnership. 2016. Federal Resource 

Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. 2nd ed. Durham, NC: 

National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University. 

Our hope is that this report, along with these and other resources, may help planning 

teams develop their own preferred strategy for effectively addressing public benefits to 

meet 2012 forest planning rules regarding characterizing ecosystem services.

Acknowledgments

We thank Bill Connelly, Jonas Epstein, Bradley Kinder, Bruce Meneghin, and 

Nicola Smith for helpful comments.

Planning teams and 

responsible public 

officials continue to 

have the flexibility 

to adopt planning 

procedures, methods, 

and public engagement 

strategies they feel 

best suit the needs of 

their particular national 

forest or grassland.
30

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

Literature Cited

Binder, S.; Haight, R.G.; Polasky, S.; Warziniack, T.; Mockrin, M.H.; Deal, 

R.L.; Arthaud, G. 2017. Assessment and valuation of forest ecosystem services: 

state of the science review. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-170. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 47 p. 

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs170.pdf. (14 August 2017).

Boyd, J.; Krupnick, A. 2009. The definition and choice of environmental 

commodities for nonmarket valuation. Discussion Paper RFF DP 09-35. 

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 57 p. http://www.rff.org/research/

publications/definition-and-choice-environmental-commodities-nonmarketvaluation. (11 May 2017).

Caldwell, P.; Muldoon, C.; Ford-Miniat, C.; Cohen, E.; Krieger, S.; Sun, G.; 

McNulty, S.; Bolstad, P.V. 2014. Quantifying the role of National Forest System 

lands in providing surface drinking water supply for the Southern United States. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-197. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 135 p.

Champ, P.A.; Boyle, K.; Brown, T.C., eds. 2017. A primer on nonmarket 

valuation. The Netherlands: Springer. 576 p.

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. https://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/25265. (11 May 2017). 

Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J. 2012. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services 

in the management of public lands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-865. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 48 p. https://www.treesearch. fs.fed.us/pubs/40875. (11 May 2017). 

Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J.; Spies, T.A.; Harmon, M.E. 2013. Applying the 

ecosystem services concept to public lands management. Agricultural and 

Resource Economics Review. 42(1): 139-158. https://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/

pubs/45158. (11 May 2017). 

Landers, D.H.; Nahlik, A.M. 2013. Final ecosystem goods and services 

classification system (FEGS-CS). EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. Corvallis, OR: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 101 p. https://gispub4.epa.gov/FEGS/

FEGS-CS%20FINAL%20V.2.8a.pdf. (11 May 2017).
31

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. 137 p. http://www.

millenniumassessment.org/documents/ document.356.aspx.pdf. (11 May 2017).

National Ecosystem Services Partnership. 2016. Federal Resource Management 

and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. 2nd ed. Durham, NC: Duke University. 

https://nespguidebook.com. (14 August 2017).

Rosenberger, R.S.; White, E.M.; Kline, J.D.; Cvitanovich, C. 2017.

Recreation economic values for estimating outdoor recreation economic 

benefits from the National Forest System. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-957. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 33 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012.

National Forest System land management. 36 CFR Part 219. Vol. 77(68). 

Monday, April 9: 21162-21276. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/

home/?cid=stelprdb5359471. (11 May 2017).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2015a. Forest 

Service land management planning handbook—public engagement. FSH 

1909.12, Chapter 40. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2015b. USDA 

Forest Service Strategic Plan: FY 2015–2020. FS-1045. Washington, DC. 53 

p. https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/strategic-plan%5B2%5D-6_17_15_

revised.pdf. (11 May 2017).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2015c. Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12. Washington, DC: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/

planningrule/home/?cid=stelprd3828310. (11 May 2017).
32

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968 Appendix 1: Worksheet for Evaluating Forest Goods and Services Step 2—Users and beneficiaries, and forest goods and services Users and other beneficiaries: Forest goods and services: Agency infrastructure and operations: Ecosystem conditions and processes: Importance of forest good or service to beneficiary: Who interacts with or experiences, and therefore benefits from, the forest good or service? From what forest resource, feature, or characteristic do they benefit? What does the agency provide or permit that enables these benefits? How do ecosystem conditions and processes provide for the forest good or service? Why do the beneficiaries care about the forest good or service?
33

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

Step 3—Which forest goods and services are key services?

Step 4—What information can be used to describe beneficiaries and forest goods and services?

Key forest good or service identification: Group or sort (optional): 

Information for characterizing users and other beneficiaries: Ecosystem conditions and processes:

Is it (1) important outside the plan area, 

and (2) likely to be influenced by the management plan?

Use this column to group or sort like 

categories of forest goods or services, or beneficiaries

What information can be used to 

describe the use or demand among beneficiaries for the forest good or service? Provide data source for each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.

What information can be used to 

describe the availability of the forest good or service? Provide data source for each possible indicator or “unknown” for no indicators.
34

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968

Appendix 2: Forest Goods and Services Starter List 

The foregoing starter list of potential users and other beneficiaries (and associated 

forest goods and services) of national forests and grasslands is based on work by 

the Environmental Protection Agency (Landers and Nahlik 2013). The work was 

intended to aid in developing a common set of concepts and terms for characterizing individual forest goods and services, identifying metrics and indicators that can 

be used to characterize environmental change, and identifying linkages between 

forest goods and services and human well-being. Most notably, the work outlines 

a classification system for characterizing ecosystem services using the concept 

of “final ecosystem goods and services” to define specifically those ecosystem 

services that are directly enjoyed by people. The intent is to aid in distinguishing 

final goods and services, such as provisioning and cultural services, from more 

“intermediate” services, such as regulating and supporting services, as outlined in 

the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). We have adapted the Landers and 

Nahlik (2013) list of final ecosystem goods and services for use by forest planning 

teams and others working to identify potential beneficiaries and forest goods and 

services in forest planning and management applications. The list is not intended as 

an exhaustive list of all potential users and other beneficiaries, but rather is intended 

to aid in stimulating thinking about possible users and other beneficiaries. 
35

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

Table A2.1—Starter list of example users and other beneficiaries, forest goods and services, and potential measures, for use in developing initial lists of forest goods and services (continued)Users and other beneficiaries

Forest good or service

Infrastructure, operations and other agency services

Ecosystem conditions and processes 

Importance of forest good or service to user or other beneficiary Beneficiary indicators and measures 

Forest good or service indicators and measures 

Commercial businesses and consumers

Agricultural 

irrigators 

Water Waterflow Functioning forests ensure waterflow 

in sufficient quantity and predictable timing for growing and maintaining crops

Number, size, and type of agricultural 

producers (trend)

Streamflow trends on NFS lands, 

percentage of flow from NFS lands, retention by wetlands, water quality, subsidence risk areas

Electric or energy 

providers and consumers

Forest 

landscapes, lands, and features

Permits Wildfire Opportunity to install power generation 

structures or transmission lines

Number of facilities or businesses and 

jobs, consumers and population trends (demand), distribution infrastructure or grid capacity, substitute corridors

Suitable areas for rights-of-way, 

powerlines

Utility and 

communication providers and consumers

Forest lands Wildfire Opportunity to install transmitting or 

transporting facilities

Number of facilities or businesses, and 

jobs; local consumers and population trends; expansion plans; substitute corridors

Suitable areas for rights-of-way

Agricultural growers, 

orchards, and consumers 

Bees, bats, and 

birds

Pollination Forestland provides habitat for species that 

provide pollination service to plants, including fruit trees adjacent to the forest

Fur and hide trappers 

and consumers

Fauna, fox Habitat 

structure and connectivity

Species that provide fur or hides for 

commercial use or sale

Number of enterprises or businesses, 

licenses

Population or habitat trends for target 

species

Timber and fiber, 

and ornamental producers and consumers

Timber, fiber, 

natural materials, nontimber forest products

Soil formation, 

regulation of insects and disease, biological diversity

Noncultivated timber for commercial use 

or sale

Cut and sold reports and trends; number, 

type, and capacity of regional loggers and processors (e.g., mills); stumpage values; sales; special collection and harvest permits; firewood cutters; set aside targets and sales

Suitable areas or volume (age and 

diameter), sale quotas, roads, treatment schedules or budgets

Food extractors and 

consumers

Flora, fauna, 

and fungi

Outfitters and 

customers

Flora, fauna, 

and game

Habitat 

structure

Number of outfitter and guide permits, 

outfitter capacity and use

Fish and game populations and habitat

Minerals and energy 

producers and consumers

Locatable, 

leasable, and salable mineral reserves

Roads, rights-ofway, surface 

occupancy permits

Minerals that can be extracted to generate 

revenue

Volume and activity trends, revenues 

and prices, job contributions, royalties, revenues, and payments

Suitable areas, accessible reserves 

(volume), company production data, BLM exploration and drilling application documents, FS surface occupancy and leasing consent documentation 

Other energy 

producers and consumers (hydro, geothermal, biomass, solar, wind)

Waterflow, 

forest land, flora

Number of facilities lands, number of 

proposed projects, alternative energy incentives

Suitable areas
36

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968 Table A2.1—Starter list of example users and other beneficiaries, forest goods and services, and potential measures, for use in developing initial lists of forest goods and services (continued) Users and other beneficiaries Forest good or service Infrastructure, operations and other agency services Ecosystem conditions and processes Importance of forest good or service to user or other beneficiary Beneficiary indicators and measures Forest good or service indicators and measures Other resource- dependent businesses and customers (e.g., marinas, resorts) Forest landscapes, forest lands, forest features Number of recreation or tourism-related businesses, recreational use and spending surveys and job contributions, FS revenue Pharmaceutical and medical suppliers and consumers Flora, fungi Permits, access Biological diversity Number of special use and harvest permits, FS revenue, industry trends Relevant habitat and vegetation acreage and trends Livestock operators 

and consumers

Forage Permit 

administration, inspection, and range improvements implementation

Wildfire, 

regulation of invasive species

Noncultivated vegetation for livestock 

consumption

Permit and animal unit month trends; 

substitute forage (seasonal) available; number, type, size of operators, and trends

Allotments and acreage, allotment 

management plans, range conditions and trends, water access

Government, municipal, residential

Residents and 

property owners

Clean air Prescribed burns Wildfire, fuel 

conditions

Functioning and intact forest provides 

sufficient air filtration service, recreationists benefit from clean air for health and enjoyment

Population trends, health and demographic 

trends

Seasonal air quality provision, air 

filtration

Residents and 

property owners

Waterflow, 

waterflow and flood regulation

Infiltration, 

storage

Natural or regulated waterflows decrease 

the risks of floods and property damage

Populations and property trends in floodprone areas, past damages, avoided 

damages, private water diversions, landslides or subsidence, development

Streamflow probabilities and trends 

on NFS lands (max), percentage of flow from FS land, wetland acres, water quality, subsidence risk areas

Residents and 

property owners

Views, scenery, 

aesthetics

Scenery and natural views increase 

satisfaction and property values of residents

Number of residents and seasonal home 

owners, and trends

Scenery, scenic quality, viewsheds

Residents and 

property owners

Fire regulation 

in wildlandurban interface

Fuel treatments Wildfire, 

regulation of insects and disease, and natural succession

Functioning healthy forest provides 

natural fire conditions and lower risk of high-intensity fires

Property and populations within wildlandurban interface Fuel and vegetation conditions in wildland-urban interface

Municipal drinking 

water plant operators

Clean water, 

waterflow

Rights-of-way, 

utility corridors

Water 

filtration and purification services, watershed conditions

Water suitable for processing by a 

municipal drinking water plant (ultimately providing benefits to end commercial and residential users)

Consumption and population (demand) 

trends, treatment costs (avoided), development trends, drinking water index 

Water quality and quantity reliability 

and trends on NFS lands, percentage of flow from NFS lands, overall watershed condition 

Recreation

Nonconsumptive 

recreationalist

Forest 

landscape, forest features, flora, fauna, at-risk species

Regulation 

of invasive species, biological diversity

Opportunity to recreate in a forest setting 

while viewing the landscape and species within it benefits many visitors

Number of visits, spending, and 

satisfaction (by activity, including wilderness); special use permits; demographics; local and traditional knowledge about importance; primary locations and sites; values for visits 

Number of campgrounds, miles 

trails; rights-of-way; scenery; site conditions; wildlife populations and trends; wilderness areas
37

Evaluating Ecosystem Services as Management Outcomes in National Forest and Grassland Planning Assessments

Table A2.1—Starter list of example users and other beneficiaries, forest goods and services, and potential measures, for use in developing initial lists of forest goods and services (continued)Users and other beneficiaries

Forest good or service

Infrastructure, operations and other agency services

Ecosystem conditions and processes 

Importance of forest good or service to user or other beneficiary Beneficiary indicators and measures 

Forest good or service indicators and measures 

Gardeners Bees, bats, birds Pollination, soil 

formation

Forestland provides habitat for these 

species, which in turn provides pollination service to plants, including fruit trees adjacent to the forest

Recreational 

gatherers and pickers

Flora, fungi, 

berries, mushrooms

Access, parking, 

trailheads

Nutrient 

cycling, seed dispersal

Gathering of plants and materials for 

consumption or other uses benefits some recreational visitors

Number of visits, spending, and 

satisfaction; special use permits; local and traditional knowledge about importance

Habitat and site conditions and trends

Recreational anglers Fish, game fish Access, parking Habitat 

structure, organic and biological cycling, clean water

Soil retention and the capacity to prevent 

and mitigate soil erosion; stabilization of hazardous soils

Number of visits, spending, and 

satisfaction; license trends; value of visit; available at substitute sites

Fish population or habitat trends

Recreational hunters Game species Access, parking, 

trailheads

Habitat 

structure, habitat connectivity

Species that can be hunted Number of visits, spending, and 

satisfaction; permits trends; value of visit; available substitute areas

Game population or habitat trends

Recreational visitors Clean air, 

views, scenery, aesthetics

Access, parking, 

trailheads

Natural 

succession

Aesthetics improves satisfaction of 

recreational visits

Number of visits, spending, and 

satisfaction; demographics; FS revenue; value of visits; available substitute sites; visit locations and activity types; offroad vehicle licenses

Rights-of-way, scenery, site 

conditions

Learning

Researchers Forest 

landscapes, forest lands, archeological sites, fauna

Energy transfer, 

predator and prey dynamics, biological diversity

Forest and grasslands provide 

opportunities to further scientific understanding

Academic citations; research grants 

citations, including proposals and requests

Research natural areas, agreements

Educators and 

students

Forest 

landscapes, forest lands, archeology and historic sites, fauna

Interpretive 

facilities, outreach programs

Energy transfer, 

predator and prey dynamics, biological diversity

Forest and grasslands provide 

opportunities to further scientific understanding, communication, and education

Number of field trips or classes, 

attendance at FS activities, school curricula, education plans and strategies

SubsistenceSubsistence user - 

food

Flora, fauna, 

fish

Biological 

diversity

Edible organisms (i.e., birds, mammals, 

reptiles, etc.) that are hunted for personal use (i.e., not for sale)

Local and traditional knowledge about 

importance of species

Subsistence user - 

drinking

Clean water Erosion 

regulation

Water suitable for drinking, wetlands 

within the plan area provide water filtration service

Number of private water diversions and 

wells, demographic and development trends; drinking water index 

Water quality and quantity, overall 

watershed condition 

Subsistence user - 

materials

Timber, fiber, 

fur

Habitat 

structure

Local and traditional knowledge about 

importance of timber fiber and fur
38

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-968 Table A2.1—Starter list of example users and other beneficiaries, forest goods and services, and potential measures, for use in developing initial lists of forest goods and services (continued) Users and other beneficiaries Forest good or service Infrastructure, operations and other agency services Ecosystem conditions and processes Importance of forest good or service to user or other beneficiary Beneficiary indicators and measures Forest good or service indicators and measures Cultural, inspirational Artists Forest landscapes, flora, fauna Biological diversity Forest resources provide source material and inspiration for artists Number and type of artists, visits or permits, publications and galleries Scenery, scenic quality, wildlife and plant populations Cultural, spiritual, ceremonial, sense-of-place participants and groups Forestlands, cultural sites, fauna Some lands and features are of special cultural or spiritual value to particular groups Demographic trends for American Indian tribes, Alaska Native corporations, and other populations; number of visits (including distance traveled); local and traditional knowledge Number of protected or preserved sites, national historic registered sites, rights-of-way

Traditional 

knowledge groups and seekers

Forest 

landscapes, forestlands, archeological sites, fauna

Number and type of groups; populations; 

partnerships; number of events and festivals

Condition and level of protection of 

sites and resources

Historical 

participants and groups

Historical sites, 

archeological sites

Site identification 

and protection

Some sites are of historical or 

archeological interest to some people

Number of visitors, events or festivals; use 

of outreach and education facilities

Condition and level of protection of 

sites and resources

Non-use options

People who care 

(existence of resource)

At-risk species, 

forest features

Biological 

diversity

Non-use values

People who care 

(options for future use or future generations)

At-risk species, 

forest features

Biological 

diversity

Non-use values

Broader global 

populations

Global populations Sequestered 

carbon

Climate 

regulation and carbon sequestration

Long-term storage of greenhouse gases in 

ecosystems

Regional or national net sequestration 

or emission objectives or goals, sequestration trends on non-FS lands, wood products processing trends

Forest carbon inventories and trends, 

carbon emissions from operations, climate change scorecards, Forest Inventory and Analysis data

Foreign subsistence, 

commercial, and recreational groups

Migratory 

species

Habitat 

structure, habitat connectivity

Forest species that migrate to other areas 

or countries provide benefits to other populations

International populations and 

demographics

Seasonal migratory wildlife 

populations and habitat

Note: NFS = National Forest System, BLM = Bureau of Land Management, FS = Forest Service.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2100

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