Mitigation; Helping Projects Move Forward

"Mitigation may be considered a hurdle when it comes to environmental permitting. For complex projects with site specific mitigation plans, the time to devise those plans and get them approved can be a long and costly endeavor. However, mitigation options are expanding and the mitigation banking industry has grown tremendously over the last two decades, helping projects move forward with less debate. Mining companies are recognizing the value that mitigation banks provide in helping to shore up project timelines and costs. Where possible, companies are taking advantage of the opportunities to buy credits from thirdparty providers offering mitigation bank credits. In some instances, mining companies are taking matters into their own hands by establishing mitigation banks to realize their own mitigation freedom. That can have its advantages and disadvantages, as discussed below. All in all, the expansion of mitigation options has streamlined the permitting process, introduced flexibility, improved project permitting timelines and loosened the permitting girdle.Compensatory mitigationCompensatory mitigation involves actions taken to offset unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources and authorized by Clean Water Act section 404 permits and other permits. As such, compensatory mitigation is a critical tool in helping the federal government meet the longstanding national goal of ‘‘no net loss’’ of Waters of the U.S., both in acreage and function.Section 314 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 required the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue regulations “establishing performance standards and criteria for the use, consistent with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, of on-site, offsite, and in-lieu fee mitigation and mitigation banking.” The provision also required that those regulations ‘‘maximize available credits and opportunities for mitigation, provide flexibility for regional variations in wetland conditions, functions and values, and apply equivalent standards and criteria to each type of compensatory mitigation’’ (73 FR 19595). The result was the Final Rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources issued in 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332).”"