The Forest Service has proposed the concept of ecosystem services as a framework for: (1) describing the many benefits provided by public & private forests; (2) evaluating the effects of policy & mgmt. decisions involving public & private forest lands; & (3) advocating the use of economic & market-based incentives to protect private forest lands from development. The concept extends traditional economic theory regarding multiple forest benefits & the use of economic incentives to enhance their provision, by emphasizing ecosystems as an organizing structure for benefits. Although the emphasis on ecosystems is new, challenges in evaluating ecosystem services are similar to those long faced by economists tasked with evaluating forest benefits.

Balancing society's multiple and sometimes competing objectives regarding forests calls for information describing the direct and indirect benefits resulting from forest policy and management, whether to address wildfire, loss of open space, unmanaged recreation, ecosystem restoration, or other objectives. The USDA Forest Service recently has proposed the concept of ecosystem services as a framework for (1) describing the many benefits provided by public and private forests, (2), evaluating the effects of policy and management decisions involving public and private forest lands, and (3) advocating the use of economic and market-based incentives to protect private forest lands from development. The concept extends traditional economic theory regarding multiple forest benefits and the use of economic incentives to enhance their provision, by emphasizing ecosystems as an organizing structure for benefits. Although the emphasis on ecosystems is new, challenges in evaluating ecosystem services are similar to those long faced by economists tasked with evaluating forest benefits: (1) defining a typology of ecosystem services, (2) describing and measuring ecosystem services units or outputs, and (3) describing and measuring ecosystem services per unit of values or social weights. Progress within the Forest Service in applying the ecosystem services concept to forest policy and management will depend on knowing what information will suffice, working across disciplines, deciding on appropriate analytical frameworks, defining the appropriate role of economic and market-based incentives, and adequately funding economics research.

Balancing society's multiple and sometimes competing objectives regarding forests calls for information describing the direct and indirect benefits resulting from forest policy and management, whether to address wildfire, loss of open space, unmanaged recreation, ecosystem restoration, or other objectives. The USDA Forest Service recently has proposed the concept of ecosystem services as a framework for (1) describing the many benefits provided by public and private forests, (2), evaluating the effects of policy and management decisions involving public and private forest lands, and (3) advocating the use of economic and market-based incentives to protect private forest lands from development. The concept extends traditional economic theory regarding multiple forest benefits and the use of economic incentives to enhance their provision, by emphasizing ecosystems as an organizing structure for benefits. Although the emphasis on ecosystems is new, challenges in evaluating ecosystem services are similar to those long faced by economists tasked with evaluating forest benefits: (1) defining a typology of ecosystem services, (2) describing and measuring ecosystem services units or outputs, and (3) describing and measuring ecosystem services per unit of values or social weights. Progress within the Forest Service in applying the ecosystem services concept to forest policy and management will depend on knowing what information will suffice, working across disciplines, deciding on appropriate analytical frameworks, defining the appropriate role of economic and market-based incentives, and adequately funding economics research.

On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon platform drilling the Macondo well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (DWH) exploded, killing 11 workers and injuring another 17. The DWH oil spill resulted in nearly 5 million barrels (approximately 200 million gallons) of crude oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico (GoM). The full impacts of the spill on the GoM and the people who live and work there are unknown but expected to be considerable, and will be expressed over years to decades. In the short term, up to 80,000 square miles of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) were closed to fishing, resulting in loss of food, jobs and recreation. The DWH oil spill immediately triggered a process under the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) to determine the extent and severity of the "injury" (defined as an observable or measurable adverse change in a natural resource or impairment of a natural resource service) to the public trust, known as the Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA). The assessment, undertaken by the trustees (designated technical experts who act on behalf of the public and who are tasked with assessing the nature and extent of site-related contamination and impacts), requires: (1) quantifying the extent of damage; (2) developing, implementing, and monitoring restoration plans; and (3) seeking compensation for the costs of assessment and restoration from those deemed responsible for the injury. This interim report provides options for expanding the current effort to include the analysis of ecosystem services to help address the unprecedented scale of this spill in U.S. waters and the challenges it presents to those charged with undertaking the damage assessment.