My talk from the World Conference on Ecological Restoration on 10/8/13 in Madison, WI. My argument is: efforts to concentrate on watershed needs and processes in ensuring greater ecological returns from restoration may not be so easily implemented when it comes to mitigation markets. Outcomes are likely to differ from region to region, however. PES promoters regularly call for spatially-explicit approaches to restoration, but on the ground their efforts run into resistance from the entrepreneurs at the heart of these markets. Their concerns are both economic and ecological. I make the argument by taking us through how restoration sites in the Oregon market are planned for, chosen, and evaluated, ending with a discussion of what the case may suggest for other markets.

1. Scaling up? Difficulties in the
prioritization, selection, and evaluation
of restoration sites for Oregon's
ecosystem services market
Eric Nost
Ph.D. Student
Department of Geography
University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. Half Mile Lane

3. Half Mile Lane

4. Half Mile Lane

5. Half Mile Lane
THPRD future trail site

6. Half Mile Lane
THPRD future trail site

7. Half Mile Lane
THPRD future trail site

8. Half Mile Lane
THPRD future trail site

9. Why HML matters
Assessment of ecological functions
“Stacking” multiple credit types
Watershed and landscape-focused site
selection

10. “Ecosystem functions, the flow of
ecosystem services, and the economic
value to society and the economy are site
specific…”
-TEEB, 2013, 08

11. “We need to be able to pinpoint places on
the landscape … and say these places are
really the most important for supplying
these benefits....”
-Gretchen Daily, 2013

12. “We need to be able to pinpoint places on
the landscape … and say these places are
really the most important for supplying
these benefits....”
-Gretchen Daily, 2013

13. “The primary objective of the watershed
approach included in today’s rule is to
maintain and improve the quantity and
quality of wetlands and other aquatic
resources in watersheds through strategic
selection of compensatory mitigation
project sites.”
-Federal Register, April 10, 2008, pg. 19598.

14. Value: “The importance or worth of a
wetland function to societal needs. This
includes public attitudes and the wetland’s
opportunity to provide a given function
based on its location.”
-OR Dept. of State Lands, 2012

15. Restoration siting
3 moments
–Assessment
–Regulatory
–Market
3 difficulties
–Context
–Categorization
–Prioritization

16. 3 moments
Assessment – use online mapping tools
Regulatory
Market

18. 3 moments
Assessment
Regulatory – categorize wetlands
Market

20. 3 moments
Assessment
Regulatory
Market – deploy trading ratios

21. “And now because of GIS and various
resource censusing tools that we
have, we can look at all these
overlays and determine where all
these priorities are.”
OR regulator, 7-6-12

23. 3 difficulties
How to assess site context
How to categorize wetlands in regulation
How to prioritize particular sites

24. Discussion
Move toward new metrics contested on both
economic and ecological grounds
Bankers haven’t taken up new projects
Markets and plans vary

25. Conclusion
Watershed planning is likely to run into
resistance, but it’ll differ place to place

26. Questions?
nost@wisc.edu
@ericnost
Thanks to: NSF Award BCS-12138277 (PIs: Martin
Doyle, Rebecca Lave, Morgan Robertson),
University of Kentucky Barnhardt-Withington
Award, UW Human Environment Research Dynamic
(HERD)