I think there would be opportunities to do a program such as that. Obviously, the downside of such a program is that it can be perceived as your simply licensing somebody to destroy something, with a payment that will then contribute to recreating it elsewhere. The notion that you can actually recreate what is lost has some difficulty; in many cases a high-quality habitat cannot be recreated.
There is merit, however, to the idea that we could do a better job by doing a restoration or remediation project on a larger scale—by pooling, if you will, resources that come from the consequence. I would be cautious about saying that this is a solution, but I think there are cases in which it could be applicable.