The difference is in the ecological principals
that drive us. Because we have the support of
regulatory agencies that we and our clients deal
with, we are uniquely successful in balancing
the most ecologically successful forms of mitigation
with the success of our clients.
We are practical people who understand that whatever
point in the future you choose to measure environmental
progress, the results will be better if we have
an environmental plan in place today and adhere
to it. At Robinsong, we believe that the best
plan available to us now is mitigation. In the
future, a plan may emerge that is deemed superior
to mitigation banking. But until a better approach
is found, mitigation banks that fully utilize
the “Watershed Approach” will guarantee
the most ecological lift with the least impediment
to developers. It doesn't matter what practice,
if any, supercedes mitigation banking. The quality
of the environment in the future will have benefited
from the fact that today’s best environmental
practices are being applied today.
Government regulators should adhere strictly to
the permitting process for every Section 404 application—
avoidance, minimization and finally mitigation.
If mitigation is permitted, it must adhere to
the “Watershed Approach” whereby restoration
for a given impact is situated as close to the
impact as possible.
Large-scale restoration—with wetland and
stream mitigation banks in watersheds where development
is imminent—not only prevents environmental
‘hot spots’ but insures ecologically
appropriate solutions. Large-scale mitigation
always wins ecologically over small, fragmented
mitigation sites. Read more
in our FAQ.
There is great opportunity in progressing responsibly,
and guidance through responsible progress is a
specialty at Robinsong.