378 • December 2015 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 33:4 Color version of this article is available through online subscription at: http://er.uwpress.org Supplementary materials are freely available online at: http://uwpress.wisc.edu/journals/journals/er-supplementary.html Ecological Restoration Vol. 33, No. 4, 2015 ISSN 1522-4740 E-ISSN 1543-4079 ©2015 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. RESEARCH ARTICLE Is Information Enough? The Effects of Watershed Approaches and Planning on Targeting Ecosystem Restoration Sites Sierra C. Woodruf and Todd K. BenDor ABSTRACT Since 1996, the watershed approach (i.e., the inclusive use of watershed information) has been a hallmark concept in ecosystem restoration site location. In 2008, federal regulators required use of the watershed approach in siting com- pensatory mitigation for aquatic impacts regulated under the U.S. Clean Water Act. However, regulations fell short of requiring full watershed plans, which could have required stakeholder involvement and inter-institutional coordination. Little work has evaluated how the watershed approach or planning position mitigation sites in the landscape. Has the watershed approach or watershed planning been successful in targeting restoration sites where they are needed? The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS; formerly the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program), a state agency, has implemented the watershed approach and extensive watershed planning to focus restoration investments. Through a multi-step planning program, the DMS employs a watershed approach to gauge the need of 12-digit watersheds for restoration. In some cases, an intensive local watershed planning process follows this targeting effort. We tested the effect of the program’s watershed targeting approach (n = 710) and local watershed planning efforts (n = 147) on increas- ing the frequency of wetland and stream mitigation projects (n = 480) in each of the state’s 1741 12-digit watersheds (1998–2012). We fnd that while the watershed approach is successful at guiding restoration to targeted watersheds over space and time, the impacts of watershed planning are more nebulous, with important but weaker panel-effects. Our fndings highlight the importance of plan quality and data management in using a watershed approach to target restoration sites effectively. Keywords: ecosystem services, environmental planning, watershed information, watershed planning M arket mechanisms have become an increasingly pop- ular policy instrument for environmental regulation. Market-based approaches have been proposed for air pol- lution, climate change, water quality, endangered spe- cies habitat, impervious surfaces, fsheries, and aquatic resources (Womble and Doyle 2012). Consequently, it is increasingly important to consider ecosystem service markets’ benefts and shortcomings and how planning and policy can improve market outcomes (BenDor and Doyle 2009, Judge-Lord and Cochran 2011). As the oldest and most prominent ecosystem service market, markets for wetlands and stream compensatory mitigation may help identify challenges and potential solutions in all ecosystem Restoration Recap • • The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) has used both the watershed approach and watershed planning to guide wetland and stream mitigation proj- ects for more than a decade, allowing for the analysis of the infuence of both approaches on the location of mitigation projects. • DMS’s implementation of the watershed approach has been effective in guiding restoration to targeted areas. The impacts of watershed planning are less clear. • Using ecological and landscape information to target areas for mitigation projects can help prevent the formation of degradation “hot spots.”