It depends entirely on the context. Certainly, as I understand the proposals from a habitat banking perspective, the idea is to move toward allowing habitat to be restored or enhanced in an area that isn't necessarily exactly where the habitat disturbance is. Depending on the context, that could be appropriate. Obviously, if that's a particularly sensitive area, this may not be an appropriate solution because you'll need restoration on site, but in certain circumstances, absolutely.
I think what we need to be careful of, however, is how far we're going to let that go. I would be concerned if we were going to, say, write off an entire area or an entire ecosystem and say we're going to fix an ecosystem three or four watersheds over. That might be an inappropriate extension of that concept, but theoretically there needs to be some flexibility to look at where we can maximize the productivity and health of ecosystems. There may be circumstances in which that's appropriate.