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.