There has been much recent discussion around proposed changes to the 2008 Mitigation Rule (Rule). There have even been some claiming to represent our industry who are proposing to re-elevate Permittee-Responsible Mitigation in the hierarchy of mitigation forms under the Rule. Some are proposing to do away with Inter-Agency Review Teams (IRTs) and still others are trying to propose that cash be the only approved mechanism for mitigation bank financial assurances.
NEBA's simple question is this: Do you think substantive changes in the 2008 Mitigation Rule need to be made?
[poll id="6"]A newly released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report is shining a spotlight on a concern many in the mitigation banking industry have raised for years: inconsistent implementation of the federal compensatory mitigation program across U.S. Army Corps of Engineers districts. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps requires compensatory mitigation
Read MoreFor too long, environmental policy debates have been framed around a false and unproductive premise: that economic growth and environmental protection are inherently at odds. This mindset is not only outdated—it is actively harmful to both outcomes. Mitigation banking offers a clear path forward. By design, it aligns economic incentives with ecological restoration, proving
Read More