Mitigation banking is the preservation, enhancement, restoration or creation (PERC) of a wetland, stream, or habitat conservation area which offsets, or compensates for, expected adverse impacts to similar nearby ecosystems. The goal is to replace the exact function and value of specific habitats (i.e. biodiversity, or other ecosystem services) that would be adversely affected by a proposed activity or project. The public interest is served when enforcement agencies require more habitat as mitigation, often referred to as a mitigation ratio, than is adversely impacted by management or development of nearby acreage.

Wetland Mitigation Credits do not convey any interest in the real estate that hosts the mitigation bank.  Wetland Credits are treated, for accounting purposes, as intangible personal property.

Mitigation banking in the US

Policies
In the United States, federal agencies (under section 404 of the Clean Water Act), as well as many state and local governments, require mitigation for the disturbance or destruction of wetland, stream, or endangered species habitat. Once approved by regulatory agencies, a mitigation bank may sell credits to developers whose projects will impact these various ecosystems.

The USEPA identifies four components of a mitigation bank as: the bank site, the bank instrument, the Interagency Review Team (IRT), and the service area. The bank site identifies the acreage of the area preserved, enhanced, restored, or created. The bank instrument is the formal agreement between regulatory agencies and the bank owner which establishes liability and success of the mitigation bank. The IRT regulates approval and oversight of the mitigation bank. The service area identifies the area in which the bank can sell credits for permitted impacts. Mitigation banks with multiple credit types (habitat types) can have different service areas for each credit type.

 Mitigation credits
Credits are designated by an interagency Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT).http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mitbanking.cfm The MBRT evaluates and permits a proposed Mitigation Bank.  They also determine the number of potential mitigation credits a bank may earn and sell. The MBRT may include representatives of various federal, state and/or local government agencies, including: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, State Environmental Protection Divisions, Local Water Management Districts, County Environmental Departments and the Soil Conservation Service.

A mitigation bank generates credits for the amount and quality of habitat the bank site improves. Credits are units of exchange defined as the ecological value associated with converting a naturally occurring wetland or other specific habitat type, for economic purposes. Mitigation credits to compensate for riparian impacts may be assigned in relation to the linear distance of a stream functioning at the highest possible capacity within the watershed of the bank. Mitigation credits are determined based on bank acreage, functional units, and other assessments. The estimated potential number of credits a bank may earn can vary based on ecological performance of the bank. The Interagency Review Team periodically releases bank credits as the bank meets certain performance milestones. This happens over the course of the "establishment period", which lasts around 10 to 12 years. When the IRT releases potential bank credits, they become available credits meaning they can be purchased for ecological offset.

RIBITS (Regulatory In lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System) is a website created by the USACE with information on mitigation and conservation banks and in-lieu fee (ILF) program sites. The website contains local and national policies and procedures for mitigation banking. It houses information about all mitigation and ILF sites including site documents, mitigation credit availability, and service areas as well as tracks all credit transactions.

 History
Section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act works to protect wetlands directly by mandating that in order to negatively impact a wetland, a person must first receive a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). In this process, the developer submits an application, called a Public Notice, to their respective district of the USACE requesting to carry out the project and associated ecological impacts. The Corps evaluates the probable impacts and solicits comments on public notices to use when making the decision whether to issue, modify, or deny a permit.

The Corps initially preferred on-site mitigation to preserve the wetland functions at their location. Unfortunately, this approach had a low long-term success rate. A 1993 Memorandum of Agreement gave national guidance on mitigation banking by instead supporting a market-oriented method. It supported off-site wetland mitigation in which a permittee purchases mitigation credits from a third-party mitigation bank. This entity, private, governmental, or non-governmental, promotes the no-net-loss policy by restoring or creating an area of wetland into a mitigation bank and selling compensatory mitigation credits to permittees. By 2000, there were over 230 private mitigation banks and 180 state-run mitigation banks.

Advantages
There are several advantages to drawing on mitigation bank credits.  For example:
 Mitigation banks place a perpetual conservation easement on the land, with a trust fund specifically dedicated to long term management of natural resources inherent to the bank. By securing mitigation credits from neighboring ecosystems many large landowners, including the government, are able to maintain a property in its current management state (e.g. grazing, timber removal, low-impact recreation or education) while retaining ecological functionality, also called ecosystem services, important to the public interest.
 Mitigation banks usually provide greater benefits than on-site or small parcel mitigation efforts.  Landowners PERC properties that are of higher ecological quality than the small parcel impacts they compensate for.  By consolidating activities necessary to create, maintain, and monitor mitigation, banks are able to provide superior ecosystem services at a reduced cost.
 Mitigation banks provide many functional business advantages, allowing for ease of development.  They allow a developer to maximize the use of a preferred development site rather than breaking up the site into sub-optimal property uses. Because mitigation bank credits are negotiated prior to development, hence prior to impact, purchasing credits from a mitigation bank decreases permitting time while also ensuring no net loss of habitat.  The cost is often lower than other alternatives.  Both regulatory and long term management risk is passed from developer to mitigation banker.

 Challenges
Despite policies mandating no net loss of habitat value and function, agencies have had difficulty ensuring that mitigation programs are managed.  Wetland mitigation programs, for example, have in some cases been approved based on total numbers of acres rather than in terms of equivalence in ecological value or function.  Merely assuming that the compensation involves a similar number of acres falls short of true equivalence unless the replacement ecological functions supplied by those acres are also the same.Enrivronmental & Natural Resource Economics 8th edition. Tom Tietenberg, Lynne Lewis. 2009 Pearson Education

A challenge faced by regulatory agencies is giving correct economic or monetary value for ecological loss, even through the use of environmental assessment techniques. Although mitigation banks have to be located in the same watershed as the impact in order to be considered adequate compensation, mitigation banks are often located far from the actual site of impact. Therefore, it is difficult to retain the original value and function.

 Taxation
The creation of a mitigation bank will require the owner of the land to convey a perpetual conservation easement prohibiting future development of the property.  The Internal Revenue Service has viewed the filing of a perpetual conservation easement in return for mitigation credits as a sale or exchange of property under section 1001 for federal income tax purposes.IRS PLR 201222004 released 6/1/2012

 See also

 References

Category:Banking
Category:Habitat management equipment and methods
Category:Environmental economics
Category:Environmental mitigation

The goal is to replace the exact function and value of specific habitats ( i.e. biodiversity , or other ecosystem services ) that would be adversely affected by a proposed activity or project .

The public interest is served when enforcement agencies require more habitat as mitigation , often referred to as a mitigation ratio , than is adversely impacted by management or development of nearby acreage .

Mitigation Ratio Calculator
Presentation on Mitigation Ratio Calculator by Dennis King of the University of Maryland (June 4, 2009). The national goal of "no net loss" of wetlands means that wetland development permits are usually issued only if permit-seekers agree to "mitigate" lost wetland functions by undertaking wetland creation, restoration or enhancement projects, or by to preserving at-risk wetland areas. Since each acre of mitigation may not fully compensate for each acre of impacted wetland a "mitigation ratio" is usually used to establish the number of acres of mitigation required per acre of wetland impact. Besides establishing a kind of environmental quality/quantity tradeoff, the mitigation ratio has an enormous effect on the cost of providing mitigation. For this reason, and because resource agencies often establish mitigation ratios on the basis of ad hoc criteria or obscure biophysical measurements or by employing politically negotiated look-up tables, the mitigation ratios recommended by resource agencies are often challenged by permit seekers. The Mitigation Ratio Calculator is a framework, formula, and associated spreadsheet program that resource agencies can use to develop wetland mitigation ratios that are based on scientific and economic principles, can be applied using "best available" information, result in mitigation that will achieve the "no net loss" wetland goal, and are capable of withstanding technical and legal challenges. The approach can be applied usefully whether mitigation takes the form of wetland creation, restoration, enhancement, or preservation, or some combination. Similar tools are being developed to assess and compare other types of environmental investments and trades, such as carbon sequestration trades that involved reforestation. Read a full report on the tool at www.kingeconomics.com/pubs/NOAA%20WetMitRatio.pdf and read more about wetland assessment procedures used at www.ebmtools.org/expanding_wetland_assessment_procedures.html.

Question: what is it called when enforcement agencies require more habitat

Answer: mitigation

Question: what is an example of a habitat replacement project

Answer: biodiversity, or other ecosystem services

Question: what is an example of an ecosystem service that is being replaced

Answer: biodiversity

Question: what is it called when agencies require more habitat as mitigation

Answer: a mitigation ratio

Question: what is the public interest served when enforcement agencies require more habitat as mitigation than is adversely

Answer: management or development of nearby acreage

Question: what is served when enforcement agencies require more habitat as mitigation

Answer: public interest

Question: what is often referred to as a mitigation ratio

Answer: enforcement agencies require more habitat as mitigation

The USEPA identifies four components of a mitigation bank as : the bank site , the bank instrument , the Interagency Review Team ( IRT ) , and the service area .

Cierra Murry is an expert in banking, credit cards, investing, loans, mortgages, and real estate. She is a banking consultant, loan signing agent, and arbitrator with more than 15 years of experience in financial analysis, underwriting, loan documentation, loan review, banking compliance, and credit risk management.
Suzanne is a researcher, writer, and fact-checker. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Finance degree from Bridgewater State University and has worked on print content for business owners, national brands, and major publications.
Mitigation banking is a system of credits and debits devised to ensure that ecological loss, especially loss to wetlands and streams resulting from various development works, is compensated by the preservation and restoration of wetlands, natural habitats, and streams in other areas so that there is no net loss to the environment.
According to the Ecological Restoration Business Association (ERBA), "mitigation banks are highly regulated enterprises that have historically been proven to deliver the highest quality, most reliable offset to environmental impacts...and a private investment into 'green infrastructure' to help offset the impacts associated with economic growth."
Key Takeaways
Mitigation banking is a way to offset the ecological loss of a development project by compensating for the preservation and restoration of a different area.
Typically, mitigation banks include wetlands and streams while conservation banks include habitats of endangered species.
As increasing industrialization creates an inevitable impact on the environment, mitigation banking aims to protect nature, reduce harmful impacts, and hold developers accountable.
When a construction project threatens a local ecosystem, project owners can offset the ecological damage by buying mitigation credits from a comparable local ecosystem.
A mitigation bank can be more cost-effective than creating separate mitigations for multiple projects.
Understanding Mitigation Banking
To mitigate means to reduce the severity of something. In this case, mitigation banking is reducing the damage caused to the environment. When a development is likely to damage an ecosystem, the loss is mitigated by preserving a comparable ecosystem in a different area.
A mitigation bank is a site developed for such a purpose, whereas the person or entity undertaking such restoration work is referred to as a mitigation banker. Just as a commercial bank has cash as an asset that it can loan to customers, a mitigation bank has mitigation credits that it can eventually sell to those who are trying to offset mitigation debits. Generally, these purchasers of mitigation credits are individuals or entities undertaking commercial projects.
There are two types of mitigation banks:
Wetland or stream mitigation banks offer mitigation credits to offset ecological losses that occur in wetlands and streams. These are regulated and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
Conservation banks offer mitigation credits to offset losses of endangered species and/or their habitats. These are regulated and approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
The Process of Mitigation Banking
When a mitigation banker purchases an environmentally damaged site that they wish to regenerate, they work with regulatory agencies such as the Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRT) and the Conservation Banking Review Team (CBRT) to approve plans for building, maintaining, and monitoring the bank.
These agencies also approve the number of mitigation credits that the bank may earn and sell with a particular restoration project. Anyone who plans to undertake commercial development on or near a wetland or stream can buy these mitigation credits to offset the negative effects of their project on the local ecosystem. The mitigation banker is responsible for not just the development, but also the future upkeep and maintenance of the mitigation bank.
The bank site is the physical acreage that is restored, established, enhanced, or preserved.
The bank instrument is the formal agreement between the bank owners and regulators establishing liability, performance standards, management and monitoring requirements, and the terms of bank credit approval.
The Interagency Review Team (IRT) is the interagency team that provides regulatory review, approval, and oversight of the bank.
The service area is the geographic area within which permitted impacts can be compensated for at a given bank.
History of Mitigation Banking
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed in 1972. Section 404 and two other provisions of the CWA made it compulsory to avoid and minimize the impact on designated water bodies and provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Below is a chronological breakdown:
In 1977, a law requiring federal agencies to take steps to avoid the impact on wetlands was passed.
In 1988, a national policy of "No Net Loss" of wetland values and functions with concepts of "Like kind replacement" and ‘Functional as opposed to spatial replacement’ emerged.
In 1993, the concept of mitigation banking started taking shape when the Clinton administration advocated the use of mitigation banks in federal wetlands programs.
The guiding principles released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on the role of mitigation banks in the CWA 404 program were expanded in 1995, with guidelines on the establishment and the use of mitigation banks.
In 1998, TEA-21 (the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) was made into a law, specifying a preference for mitigation banking for transportation projects.
In 2008, after four years of planning, a federal rule to establish standards for mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, and individual mitigation (also called permittee-responsible mitigation) was implemented. These standards are consistent with those in the CWA 404.
1200+
There are over 1200 mitigation banks operating in the United States, with a total credit value of over $100 billion.
Benefits of Mitigation Banking
Protection and Conservation of the Environment
Mitigation banking aids in protecting nature and its diversity. The impact of increasing industrialization and urbanization on natural habitats, streams, and wetlands is inevitable. Mitigation banks provide an opportunity to at least partially offset this impact.
More Efficiency
A mitigation bank is more efficient than restoring a different ecological site to offset each individual development. This is because it is easier to restore a vast consolidated piece of land than it is to preserve a lot of small sites. The economies of scale and technical expertise of a mitigation bank make it more efficient not just in terms of cost, but also in terms of the quality of restored acreage.
Less Time Lag and Regulatory Ease
It is easier for developers to buy credits from an approved bank than to get regulatory approvals that might otherwise take months to procure. As mitigation banks have already restored units of affected acreage in the process of earning credits, there is little to no time lag between the environmental impact at a service area and its restoration at a bank site.
Transfer of Liability
The system of mitigation banking effectively transfers the liability of ecological loss from the developer (also called permittee) to the mitigation banker. Once the permittee buys the required credits as per regulations, it becomes the responsibility of the mitigation banker to develop, maintain, and monitor the site on a long-term basis.
If there is no eligible mitigation bank in a specific area, the developer can create their own mitigation project to offset ecosystem loss. This is called permittee-responsible mitigation.
Current State of Mitigation Banking
Currently, there are a number of mitigation banks approved in the United States. According to the Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS), developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as of July 2021, there were over 2,000 approved banks.
Challenges of Mitigation Banking
The foremost challenge to successful mitigation banking is the difficulty of correctly assessing ecological loss in monetary terms. The credits offered to mitigation banks have to be appropriately priced and evaluated by regulators, but although these agencies make use of a number of environmental assessment techniques, it is not easy to fully capture the economic impact of damage to natural resources.
It is also questionable whether the natural habitats and wetlands that took centuries to evolve can be artificially engineered in a span of just a few years. In some cases, the quality of such artificially developed wetlands in terms of floral and faunal diversity has been found to be sub-standard, compared to their natural counterparts.
It is also believed that mitigation banks, as opposed to individual mitigation where developers create their own mitigation sites in the vicinity of acreage destroyed, tend to be located far from the sites of impact, and hence cannot fully replicate the impacted site.
How Much Is a Mitigation Bank Credit Worth?
Because development projects can only be mitigated by similar ecosystems, the cost of mitigation bank credits will vary widely by location and impact activity. For example, in Iowa, an emergent wetland credit can range from $35,000 to $55,000 per acre, while a forested wetland credit can cost as much as $75,000.
What Is the Minimum Acreage for a Mitigation Bank?
A wetland mitigation bank must have the potential to restore approximately 100 acres of degraded wetlands, while a stream mitigation bank must cover 4,000 linear feet of degraded streams. Sites that do not meet these thresholds can be combined with other sites in the same watershed to create an umbrella mitigation bank.
How Do You Establish a Mitigation Bank?
Mitigation banking is a complex process that takes several years. The most important part is site selection: the mitigation banker must thoroughly research the site's watershed and service area, and identify the ecosystems in need of restoration and enhancement. The plans must be authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Inter-agency Review Team. After all the approvals are in place, the mitigation banker is still responsible for maintaining and monitoring the restored ecosystem.
The Bottom Line
Mitigation banking is a system that transfers the liability of ecological damage from the permittee to the mitigation banker through a system of credits and debits under regulatory guidelines. A mitigation banker develops, restores, preserves, and manages the acreage at a bank site and earns mitigation credits, which are then sold to a permittee or developer for a fee.
This system, despite some of its limitations, still has a lot of advantages. With increasing private investment in the development of mitigation banks and research on ecosystems as well as easing regulatory controls, the future for mitigation banking is bright both for investors and for nature.
Article Sources
Investopedia requires writers to use primary sources to support their work. These include white papers, government data, original reporting, and interviews with industry experts. We also reference original research from other reputable publishers where appropriate. You can learn more about the standards we follow in producing accurate, unbiased content in our
editorial policy.
The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where listings appear. Investopedia does not include all offers available in the marketplace.

Question: how many components are identified by the usepa

Answer: four

Question: what does ie stand for

Answer: Interagency Review Team

Question: what are the four components of a mitigation bank

Answer: the bank site

Question: who identifies the four components of a mitigation bank

Answer: The USEPA

Question: what are the four components of a bank

Answer: mitigation bank

Mitigation credits Credits are designated by an interagency Mitigation Bank Review Team ( MBRT).http://water.epa.gov / lawsregs / guidance / wetlands / mitbanking.cfm The MBRT evaluates and permits a proposed Mitigation Bank .

They also determine the number of potential mitigation credits a bank may earn and sell .

Mitigation Banks under CWA Section 404
A mitigation bank is a wetland, stream, or other aquatic resource area that has been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources permitted under Section 404 or a similar state or local wetland regulation.1 A mitigation bank may be created when a government agency, corporation, nonprofit organization, or other entity undertakes these activities under a formal agreement with a regulatory agency. Mitigation banks have four distinct components:
- Bank site: the physical acreage restored, established, enhanced, or preserved;
- Bank instrument: the formal agreement between the bank owners and regulators establishing liability, performance standards, management and monitoring requirements, and the terms of bank credit approval;
- Interagency Review Team (IRT): the interagency team that provides regulatory review, approval, and oversight of the bank; and
- Service area: the geographic area in which permitted impacts can be compensated for at a given bank.
The value of a bank is defined in "compensatory mitigation credits." A bank's instrument identifies the number of credits available for sale and requires the use of ecological assessment techniques to certify that those credits provide the required ecological functions. Although most mitigation banks are designed to compensate only for impacts to various wetland types, some banks have been developed to compensate specifically for impacts to streams (i.e., stream mitigation banks). Mitigation banks are a form of "third-party" compensatory mitigation, in which the responsibility for compensatory mitigation implementation and success is assumed by a party other than the permittee. This transfer of liability has been a very attractive feature for Section 404 permit-holders, who would otherwise be responsible for the design, construction, monitoring, ecological success, and long-term protection of the site.
Background
Guidance from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 1983 supported the establishment of the first banks, most of which were sites of advanced consolidated compensatory mitigation for impacts planned by state Departments of Transportation or other state agencies.2 The subsequent expansion of mitigation banking was catalyzed by the release of several important reports that challenged the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation practices under the Section 404 program, particularly on-site and single-project off-site compensatory mitigation.3
EPA and the Corps, the primary federal agencies responsible for implementing the federal Section 404 program, began to view banking as a way of addressing these shortcomings of mitigation policy and in response issued interim Banking Guidance in 1993. Mitigation banking programs were well-positioned to address many of these issues by providing for easier monitoring, long-term stewardship, and unambiguous transfer of liability for assuring mitigation success from the permittee to the banker. The promise of regulatory simplification for permit applicants that use a bank to satisfy permit conditions has also spurred activity in mitigation banking. In addition, language supporting the development of banking was included in the White House Office of Environmental Policy's 1993 Federal Wetlands Plan as well as in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act of 1993.
In November 1995, EPA, the Corps, FWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service released the final Federal Guidance on the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks.4 The guidance gave state agencies, local governments, and the private sector the regulatory certainty and procedural framework they needed to move forward on seeking approval to operate mitigation banks. Following its issuance, banks proliferated across the country and became a mainstream compensatory mitigation option.5 With the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, banking became the preferred compensatory mitigation alternative for impacts involving the federal funding of transportation projects.6 Since 1998, conferences have been held annually devoted to sharing and encouraging advances in mitigation banking policy and practice.7
Elevated interest in banking has spurred many Corps Districts to adopt regional guidance regulating banking. Also, by 2001, 23 states had either statutes or regulations in place that authorized the use of mitigation banks and an additional eight states had issued guidelines to govern the use of mitigation banks.8
In response to comprehensive and independent critiques of the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation at offsetting impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources under Section 404, EPA, the Corps, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Transportation released the National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan on December 26, 2002.9 The Plan includes 17 action items designed to improve the ecological performance and results of all forms of compensatory mitigation, including banking. Approximately half of these 17 action items have been implemented while the remaining items are currently under development.
In 2004, the Society of Wetland Scientist released a position paper describing mitigation banking as a sound mechanism which can improve compensatory mitigation success and contribute to the goal of no net loss of wetlands and other aquatic resources.10 Nevertheless, there continues to be a need to improve and refine the practices of site selection, design, implementation, monitoring, and long-term management for all compensatory mitigation projects, including mitigation banks.11
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 identifies mitigation banking as the preferred mechanism for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts associated with Corps Civil Works projects. Section 2036 of the Act states that "In carrying out a water resources project that involves wetlands mitigation and that has impacts that occur within the service area of a mitigation bank, the Secretary [of the Army], where appropriate, shall first consider the use of the mitigation bank if the bank contains sufficient available credits to offset the impact."
In 2008, EPA and the Corps issued revised regulations governing compensatory mitigation.12 These regulations established equivalent and effective standards for all three compensatory mitigation mechanisms: mitigation banks, in-lieu fee mitigation, and permittee-responsible mitigation. Since mitigation banking is the most reliable form of compensatory mitigation, these regulations establish a preference for the use of banks when appropriate credits are available.
Status of Mitigation Banking
In 1992 there were only 46 banks permitted, almost all of which were publicly-sponsored single-user banks, in which entities such as state agencies or large corporations stockpile wetland credits for their own later use. The first entrepreneurial banks to sell credits to any permittee were developed between 1991 and 1994. By the end of 2001, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) had identified approximately 219 approved wetland mitigation banks nationwide, more than 130 of which were entrepreneurial banks, and 22 of which had sold out of credits. This represented a 376% increase in the number of banks over 10 years, nearly all of which occurred following the release of the 1995 Banking Guidance. An estimated 139,000 acres were included in the 219 approved banks that provide a combination of wetland restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation.
ELI also identified an additional 95 banks under review with approval pending as of December 2001. The 95 banks under review at that time included an additional 8,000 acres. ELI also listed 40 approved "umbrella banks" (i.e., banks developing multiple compensation sites under a single instrument) with approximately 26,848 acres of mitigation wetlands approved at 308 individual sites.13 A 2005 inventory by the Corps' Institute for Water Resources estimates a total of 450 approved mitigation banks (59 of which have sold out of credits) and an additional 198 banks in the proposal stage. Since this survey counted umbrella banks as a single bank, the number of bank sites is likely considerably larger than this estimate. As of August, 2013, there were over 1,800 bank sites loaded into the RIBITS (Regulatory In-lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System) database. For the most recent estimates of the number of banks and bank sites across the country query the RIBITS website.
Benefits of Mitigation Banking
Mitigation banking has a number of advantages over traditional permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation because of the ability of mitigation banking programs to:
- Reduce uncertainty over whether the compensatory mitigation will be successful in offsetting project impacts;
- Assemble and apply extensive financial resources, planning, and scientific expertise not always available to many permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation proposals;
- Reduce permit processing times and provide more cost-effective compensatory mitigation opportunities; and
- Enable the efficient use of limited agency resources in the review and compliance monitoring of compensatory mitigation projects because of consolidation.
In its 2001 critique of compensatory mitigation, the National Research Council (NRC) concluded that third-party compensatory mitigation such as mitigation banks offer advantages over permittee-responsible mitigation in the fulfillment of regulatory goals.14 One such advantage identified by NRC is the consensus-driven, interagency review process used to approve banks.15 The 2002 National Mitigation Action Plan acknowledges that more expertise and collaboration should be brought to bear on the Section 404 mitigation process. The 2008 Corps/EPA compensatory mitigation regulations codify the consensus-based interagency review team approach endorsed by the NRC. NRC also noted that banks are more likely than traditional compensatory mitigation to achieve desired long-term outcomes and to create mitigation sites that are protected in perpetuity by organizations dedicated to resource conservation.16
Additionally, banking represents an increasingly important economic component of the environmental consulting sector, showcasing the synergies that can arise between effective environmental protection and economic expansion. Sixty two percent of the banks identified in ELI's 2002 study were privately-owned entrepreneurial mitigation banks; entrepreneurial providers of bank credits have emerged as a nationally-organized industry17 contributing hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the domestic product.
Looking Ahead
EPA looks forward to working with the Corps and our other partners on continuing to improve mitigation banking's effectiveness at offsetting authorized impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. Improving IRT training, increasing mitigation bank tracking and monitoring, and expanding the evaluation of bank performance are a few of the areas the EPA plans to focus on in the coming years.
Related Links
- Federal Compensatory Mitigation Regulations
- EPA mitigation website
- Corps Regulatory Program website
- National Mitigation Action Plan
- 2001 National Research Council Compensatory Mitigation Study
- Environmental Law Institute Research on Compensatory Mitigation website
- Ecological Restoration Business Association
- National Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference
References
- EPA, Compensatory Mitigation Fact Sheet
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interim Guidance on Mitigation Banking. ES Instruction Memorandum No. 80, June 23, 1983.
- Eliot, Wendy. 1985, Implementing Mitigation Policies in San Francisco Bay: A Critique. Oakland, CA: California State Coastal Conservancy; Race, Margaret Seluk. 1985. Critique of Present Wetlands Mitigation Policies in the United States Based on an Analysis of Past Restoration Projects in San Francisco Bay. Environmental Management 9 (1):71-82; Erwin, Kevin L. 1990. Wetland Evaluation for Restoration and Creation. In Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, edited by J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula. Washington, DC: Island Press.
- Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks
- Environmental Law Institute, 2002. "Banks and Fees: the Status of Off-site Wetlands Mitigation in the United States," Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.
- TEA-21 Banking Preference Guidance
- National Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference
- ELI, 2002.
- National Mitigation Action Plan
- Society of Wetlands Scientists
- National Research Council, 2001. "Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act," National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
- Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources
- ELI, 2002.
- NRC, 2001, p. 9.
- NRC, 2001, pp. 82, 160-4.
- NRC, 2001, p. 163.
- Ecological Restoration Business Association

Question: what does the mrm stand for

Answer: interagency Mitigation Bank Review Team

Question: who designated mitigation credits

Answer: an interagency Mitigation Bank Review Team

Question: who designated mitigation credits in wetlands

Answer: interagency Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT)

Question: what does the mmbrt stand for

Answer: Mitigation Bank Review Team

Question: what is designated by an interagency mitigation bank review team

Answer: Mitigation credits Credits

Question: who evaluates and permits a proposed mitigation bank

Answer: MBRT)

Question: what does the mhrrt determine

Answer: the number of potential mitigation credits a bank may earn and sell


The River Avill is a small river on Exmoor in Somerset, England.

It rises on the eastern slopes of Dunkery Beacon and flows north through Timberscombe and Dunster flowing into the Bristol Channel at Dunster Beach. It runs South-West of Minehead, and North of Taunton.

The Gallox Bridge in Dunster dates from the 15th century. It has been designated as a Grade I listed building and Scheduled Ancient Monument. It is a narrow stone packhorse bridge, on the southern outskirts of Dunster, with two arches over the River Avill. It was originally known as Gallows Bridge and has a roadway width of , a total width of  and is  long. The river then skirts Dunster New Park surrounding Dunster Castle.

Near to Dunster Beach the stream is crossed by a bridge on the West Somerset Railway.

The river was part of the inspiration for the hymn All Things Bright and Beautiful.

References

 - Somerset Rivers River Avill

Category:Rivers of Somerset
Category:Exmoor

It has been designated as a Grade I listed building and Scheduled Ancient Monument .

It is a narrow stone packhorse bridge , on the southern outskirts of Dunster , with two arches over the River Avill .

Gallox Bridge
|Hob Uid: 36854|
|Location : |
Somerset
Somerset West and Taunton
Dunster
|Grid Ref : SS9895143212|
|Summary : Gallox Bridge is packhorse bridge, reputed to have been built in the 15th century, which spans the River Avill on the southern outskirts of Dunster. It was also formerly referred to as Gallows Bridge, Gallocks Bridge, Gallocksbrigge or Doddebrigge in the primary sources- indicating the presence of a nearby gallows. It has a roadway width of 1.2 metres, a total width of 1.9 metres and is 13.5 metres long. It has two arches which are slightly pointed and have double arch rings. The bridge leads to a causeway skirting a ford on the north side. The bridge would have carried packhorse traffic involved in the wool trade. It is still used as a public footbridge, and is a survivor of the simple type of stone bridge to be found in the West Country and elsewhere. The bridge is in the care of English Heritage.|
|More information : [SS 9895 4321] Gallox Bridge [NR] (1) |
Gallox Bridge, Dunster, on the River Avill, is a packhorse bridge with two slightly pointed arches and a roadway width of approximately 3ft. 3 inches (2). Scheduled (3). (2)(3)
The bridge is as described above (see G.P.s AO 65/124/3). (4)
Gallox Bridge, Grade I, Park Street. Possibly 15th century, narrow stone packhorse bridge. (For full description see list.) (5)
Additional bibliography. (6)
Scheduled. (7)
Visitor information. (8)
Source 9 includes a brief accessible overview of Gallox Bridge for visitors; it also notes the former names of "Gallows Bridge", "Gallocks Bridge", "Galloxbrigge" or "Toddebrigge" (the last name being the oldest). (9)

Question: what type of bridge is in dunster

Answer: packhorse bridge

Question: in which town or city is the packhorse bridge

Answer: Dunster

Question: what is the status of the bridge in dunster

Answer: Scheduled Ancient Monument

Question: what grade is the bridge in dunster

Answer: Grade I

Question: how many arches does the bridge have

Answer: two

It was originally known as Gallows Bridge and has a roadway width of , a total width of and is long .

The river then skirts Dunster New Park surrounding Dunster Castle .

The Somerset HER is a record of the known historic environment in the modern administrative county of Somerset (excluding Exmoor National Park). There are currently over 30,000 entries in the record.
Use the box above to search for words in the site name (or the entire text description) or if you know the site number (PRN), search for that. Below you can do detailed searches for site classifications and limit them to parishes or areas. Use the Map tab to look at locally and nationally Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, archaeological sites, historical OS mapping, tithe maps (1840s) and aerial photographs (1940s, 2006).
Please get in touch if you would like to update the information or ask about things. We welcome contributions and photos to make the record better. Click the button or email: her@swheritage.org.uk
There are no results yet.
No sites selected.
Information on these can be found below the map.
Base maps: © Crown copyright and database rights Ordnance Survey 100023366. HER mapping: copyright Somerset County Council. Show/hide centre marker
The Somerset HER is a record of the known historic environment in the administrative county of Somerset (excluding Exmoor National Park). Historically it has focussed on archaeological sites but increasingly the upstanding built environment is being recorded.
Please read the Ordnance Survey notice and Conditions of Use below.
We would welcome your feedback on the website and also any new or additional information (text or pictures) that you may wish to provide.
The information on this website is provided for information only and must not be relied on for legal or planning related work. Please contact us if you require details or would like a definitive search.
The Ordnance Survey mapping used in this website is provided by Somerset County Council under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to fulfil its public function to make available Council-held public domain information. Licence number 100023366. The Ordnance Survey web site can be found at www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

Question: what was the bridge originally known as

Answer: Gallows Bridge

Question: where does the river gallows begin

Answer: Dunster New Park

Question: the river gallows skirts which castle

Answer: Dunster Castle

Question: what is the length of the gallows bridge

Answer: long

Question: where does the river gallows run through

Answer: Dunster New Park surrounding Dunster Castle

Question: where does the gallows bridge begin and end

Answer: The river

Question: where does the gallows bridge start and end

Answer: Dunster New

The river was part of the inspiration for the hymn All Things Bright and Beautiful .

Insert Article - Update Article - Insert Image - Gallery - Logout - Insert News - Update News - Insert Event - Update Event
{{PageList.data.query1[0].PagesTitle}}
New Listings
{{CalTitle}} - {{CalID}}
- Event Admin
- News Admin
- Business Admin
- Encycl Admin
- Event Loc Admin
- BB Admin
- SC Admin
- CC Admin
- Hotel Admin
- Attraction Admin
- Food Admin
- Club Admin
- Location Map
- Google Maps
- Generator XML
- Google Analytics
- SEO4ajax
- Sources
- Google Web Master Tools
- Unprocessed
- Interseer.com
- Design Ideas
- www.webconfs.com
- www.openlinkprofiler.org
- Hootsuite
- Hashtags
- Search Engine News
- Sources
- Share This
- Heart Hosting Status
- Admin Google Plus login in as everythingexmoor@googlemail.com
- Admin Links
- Website Speed Test
Look for an Exmoor Event by Date
Can you add to the pool of information?
Add your own Exmoor Event to the Events Calendar
Add Exmoor News to your website
Upcoming Exmoor Events

Question: what hymn was inspired by the river

Answer: All Things Bright and Beautiful

Question: what was the source of the song all things bright and beautiful

Answer: The river

Question: what hymn is all things bright and beautiful

Answer: Bright and Beautiful

Question: what type of music is all things bright and beautiful

Answer: hymn


Phil Dollman (born 15 May 1985) is a Welsh rugby union player. Dollman was a highly versatile player who could cover multiple positions in the backline, However he was mostly used at Exeter as a center or fullback. Dollman signed for Exeter Chiefs in May 2009 from Dragons. He started the final and scored a try as Exeter Chiefs defeated Wasps to be crowned champions of the 2016-17 English Premiership. He intends retiring at the conclusion of the 2019–20 season.

International
In May 2017 at the age of 32 he was named in the Wales senior squad for the tests against Tonga and Samoa in June 2017, following an injury to Rhun Williams.Wales squad June 2017 In that year's Premiership final Dollman himself suffered an injury in turn however and did not make an appearance for his country that summer.

References

External links
Aviva Premiership Player Profile
Exeter Chiefs profile

Category:1985 births
Category:Living people
Category:Dragons (rugby union) players
Category:Exeter Chiefs players
Category:Rugby union players from Caerphilly
Category:Welsh rugby union players
Category:Rugby union centres

He started the final and scored a try as Exeter Chiefs defeated Wasps to be crowned champions of the 2016 - 17 English Premiership .

He intends retiring at the conclusion of the 2019–20 season .

Dollman agrees short-term deal
By Mark Stevens
5/7/20
Phil Dollman says he’s looking to end his Exeter Chiefs career on a high note after he this week agreed terms on a new short-term deal with the Gallagher Premiership club.
The popular Welshman’s contract expired at the end of June, but after discussions with Director of Rugby, Rob Baxter, he is now extending his career with the Devon club until the end of the 2019/20 campaign.
That means the 35-year-old will be part and parcel of the Chiefs mix as they look to resume their season in both the Premiership and Heineken Champions Cup next month.
“Fingers crossed we can get back to rugby soon,” said Dollman, who was Baxter’s first signing when he took charge of the Chiefs back in 2009. “If it does happen, hopefully we can get to do some special things. There is still plenty out there for us to go after, so it’s exciting times.”
The Chiefs currently head the Premiership by five points from next-best Sale Sharks, whilst they also have a European quarter-final tie against Northampton Saints to tackle. However, the here and now is all about training for Dollman and his club-mates, who have not seen competitive action since mid-March when they defeated Bath comprehensively at Sandy Park.
The Covid-19 pandemic has meant sport around the world has been severely affected, but signs are there that some kind of normality is resuming. The Chiefs are set to engage in Stage Two training from tomorrow and hopes are still high that the league will resume again on August 15.
Dollman admits lockdown life has certainly been ‘different’ in so many ways, including denying certain players the chance to see out their final days in Chiefs colours. And, all being well, he will get his opportunity to bow out on his terms.
“To start with it was all a bit of the unknown for all of us,” he explained. “Nobody really knew how things were going to look in a few months, but things have developed and we are starting to get back to a bit of normality. This has been the longest break from rugby I’ve ever had and it was nice to let the body recover and have that time with the family.
“It was different for sure, I’m not sure how much I could get used to it, but I guess that gave me an insight into what retired life is going to be like. I’m assuming when I do get a real job it will be a bit different to just sitting at home, going for walks or just sitting on zoom calls all the time.
“Being back at the club, though, has been good. It’s like having another pre-season in the season. Some of the running sessions have been tough and they’ve allowed us to get that base fitness back into us, but I’m expecting it to ramp up over these next few weeks.”
And when rugby does indeed return to the field, Dollman – who has amassed 240 first team appearances for the Chiefs – hopes to play his part as the club look to attack on two fronts.
“I’m not quite sure how other teams will go about things,” he said. “Some may be looking to next season and trying to get a few things in place, but from our point of view we have to get as much out of it as we can. It’s an opportunity for all of us to go after things because it will soon slip away.
“Personally, I’m going to relish every moment of it. The Chiefs has been my home for over ten years now and I’ve experienced so many good times, both on and off the field. Yes, it’s going to be tough the day I do eventually finish here, but it’s been a hell of a journey for me.
“In a way, I’m incredibly lucky that I will get another chance to play a bit more rugby. There are a few boys, guys like Hilly [Sam Hill], Whitey [Nic White], Grog [Greg Holmes] and Kev [Matt Kvesic], they’ve had their journeys cut short because of what has happened.
“That’s disappointing for them, I’m sure. No doubt they will all have had a bit of a sour taste in the mouth, particularly because of how well the season was going and that they wanted to be part of something special. That said, what can you do?
“It’s strange times for all of us right now, but we just have to crack on, get on with things and hopefully it will all come good in the end.”

Question: who did exeter chiefs beat to win the english premiership 2016

Answer: Wasps

Question: which rugby union team has won the 2016 premiership

Answer: Exeter Chiefs

Question: exeter chiefs were crowned champions of which competition in 2016

Answer: English Premiership

Question: when was the last time exeter chiefs won the premiership

Answer: 2016-17 English Premiership

Question: how many tries did exeter chiefs score in the 2016 premiership final

Answer: a try

Question: when does the exeter chiefs captain intend to retire

Answer: 2019–20 season

Question: when is exeter chiefs captain going to retire

Answer: 2019–20


Grove Township, Stearns County, Minnesota

Grove Township is a township in Stearns County, Minnesota, United States. The population was 493 at the 2010 census. The township includes the southern one-third of the City of Melrose and the City of Greenwald.

Grove Township was organized in 1867.

Geography
According to the United States Census Bureau, the township has a total area of ;  is land and , or 1.45%, is water.

Grove Township is located in Township 125 North of the Arkansas Base Line and Range 33 West of the 5th Principal Meridian.

Demographics
As of the census of 2000, there were 505 people, 158 households, and 137 families residing in the township.  The population density was 15.2 people per square mile (5.9/km2).  There were 160 housing units at an average density of 4.8/sq mi (1.9/km2).  The racial makeup of the township was 99.80% White, and 0.20% from two or more races.

There were 158 households, out of which 51.3% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 80.4% were married couples living together, 3.2% had a female householder with no husband present, and 12.7% were non-families. 12.0% of all households were made up of individuals, and 3.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older.  The average household size was 3.20 and the average family size was 3.49.

In the township the population was spread out, with 34.7% under the age of 18, 5.3% from 18 to 24, 30.1% from 25 to 44, 23.6% from 45 to 64, and 6.3% who were 65 years of age or older.  The median age was 35 years. For every 100 females, there were 117.7 males.  For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 107.5 males.

The median income for a household in the township was $45,750, and the median income for a family was $50,250. Males had a median income of $37,125 versus $20,000 for females. The per capita income for the township was $18,533.  About 11.6% of families and 12.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 15.3% of those under age 18 and 12.5% of those age 65 or over.

References

Category:Townships in Stearns County, Minnesota
Category:St. Cloud, Minnesota metropolitan area
Category:Townships in Minnesota

The population was 493 at the 2010 census .

The township includes the southern one - third of the City of Melrose and the City of Greenwald .

U.S. Board on Geographic Names
The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government. The BGN comprises representatives of Federal agencies concerned with geographic information, population, ecology, and management of public lands.
Important Update
In response to the Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3404 - Declaring "Squaw" a Derogatory Term and Implementing Procedures to Remove the Term from Federal Usage, and Secretarial Order 3405 - Addressing Derogatory Geographic Names, the BGN’s consideration of certain geographic name changes is being amended.
For S.O. 3404, a list of all official feature names that include the word "Sq__", as recorded in the Board on Geographic Names (BGN) Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), is available at: Geographic Names Information System (nationalmap.gov); see All Official Sq_ names. Please note that a small number of names on this list are outside the purview of the BGN but are considered official for Federal use. More information is available in the Derogatory Geographic Names FAQs.
The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government. The BGN comprises representatives of Federal agencies concerned with geographic information, population, ecology, and management of public lands. Sharing its responsibilities with the Secretary of the Interior, the BGN promulgates official geographic feature names with locative attributes as well as principles, policies, and procedures governing the use of domestic names, foreign names, Antarctic names, and undersea feature names.
The original program of names standardization addressed the complex issues of domestic geographic feature names during the surge of exploration, mining, and settlement of western territories after the American Civil War. Inconsistencies and contradictions among many names, spellings, and applications became a serious problem to surveyors, map makers, and scientists who required uniform, non-conflicting geographic nomenclature. President Benjamin Harrison signed an Executive Order establishing the BGN and giving it authority to resolve unsettled geographic names questions. Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
The BGN gradually expanded its interests to include foreign names and other areas of interest to the United States, a process that accelerated during World War II. In 1947, the BGN was recreated by Congress in Public_Law_80-242. The Bylaws of the BGN have been in place since 1948 and have been revised when needed. The usefulness of standardizing (not regulating) geographic names has been proven time and again, and today more than 50 nations have some type of national names authority. The United Nations stated that "the best method to achieve international standardization is through strong programs of national standardization." Numerous nations established policies relevant to toponymy (the study of names) in their respective countries.
In this age of geographic information systems, the Internet, and homeland defense, geographic names data are even more important and more challenging. Applying the latest technology, the BGN continues its mission. It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed. In partnership with Federal, State, and local agencies, the BGN provides a conduit through which uniform geographic name usage is applied and current names data are promulgated. The U.S. Geological Survey's National Geospatial Program and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency provide secretariat support to the Domestic Names Committee and Foreign Names Committee, respectively.
For geographic feature names policies applying to the United States, or to the use of foreign geographic names, Antarctica names, and undersea feature names by the United States, see the respective items in the main menu on the left. Any person or organization, public or private, may make inquiries or request the BGN to render formal decisions on proposed new names, proposed name changes, or names that are in conflict. Meetings are open to the public and are held according to schedule. Minutes of the BGN's meetings are available. Communications concerning the BGN should be addressed to:
Executive Secretary
U.S. Board on Geographic Names
BGNEXEC@usgs.gov

Question: what was the population of the township in 2010

Answer: 493

Question: what is the name of the city in the township

Answer: Greenwald

Question: what portion of melrose is included in the township

Answer: one-third

Question: what is the southern one-third of the city of melrose

Answer: Melrose

Question: which part of melrose is included in the township

Answer: southern

Question: what cities are in the township

Answer: Melrose and the City of Greenwald


thumb|A woman wearing a speedsuit in a triathlon

A speedsuit is an item of unisex exercise attire or an industrial uniform used when quick clothing changes are necessary. It is either a single piece of clothing which tightly fits the torso and, optionally, varying amounts of the arms and legs; overall, it is similar to a leotard, though intentionally made especially tight and constricting to hug the body for varying purposes of warmth (when used in snowboarding or skiing) and hydrodynamics (when used in swimming and other water sports), or it is a tight fitting collared jumpsuit similar to coveralls.

In popular culture
A running gag in The Venture Bros., beginning with the episode "Hate Floats" is Dr. Venture's assertions regarding the superiority of a "speedsuit" and his desire to outfit his son Dean in a speedsuit, initially for his birthday and later as a rite of passage. A gag in the initial episode mentions how a speedsuit is what a "super-scientist" wears "for the rest of his life", and explanation within the imagined reality of the show for the reason why animated characters are always shown in the same clothing and animated in the same outfits regardless of the circumstance. In the show a speedsuit is a short sleeve jumpsuit. The term has now made its way into the vernacular of the jumpsuit / work uniform industry.Speedsuits at Red Kap Workwear

See also

Sportswear (activewear)
LZR Racer
Aquapel
Ski suit
Coveralls

References

Category:One-piece suits
Category:Sportswear

In popular culture A running gag in The Venture Bros. , beginning with the episode " Hate Floats " is Dr. Venture 's assertions regarding the superiority of a " speedsuit " and his desire to outfit his son Dean in a speedsuit , initially for his birthday and later as a rite of passage .

A gag in the initial episode mentions how a speedsuit is what a " super - scientist " wears " for the rest of his life " , and explanation within the imagined reality of the show for the reason why animated characters are always shown in the same clothing and animated in the same outfits regardless of the circumstance .

Short Sleeve Speedsuit
Description
Fast jobs call for our high-performance Speedsuit. Made of comfortable, lightweight fabric that wicks away sweat, this slim-fit coverall keeps you feeling dry and cool. But wicking is just one of its talents. The lightweight Men's Long-Sleeve Coverall Speedsuit is engineered to resist stains by releasing dirt and grease during washing, leaving you with a crisp, clean coverall ready for tomorrow.
Fabric Technology
TOUCHTEX™ TECHNOLOGY
Fabric has superior color retention
ZEROSKRATCH™ APPAREL
Keeps buttons and snaps under wraps to prevent paint jobs and surface scratches
DURABLE PRESS
With a wrinkle-resistant finish, minimum pressing or ironing required
- Fabric
- 5 oz. Poplin
- Blend
- 65% Polyester / 35% Combed Cotton
- Care
- Finish
- Wrinkle Resistant
- Closure
- Two-way brass zipper
- Two set-in front pockets, two chest pockets (right chest pocket has functional flap), two patch hip pockets
- Country Origin
- Imported

Question: in which episode of the venture bros does dr venture comment on the superiority of a

Answer: Hate Floats

Question: what is the name of venture bros son

Answer: Dean

Question: when does dr venture outfit his son in a speedsuit

Answer: his birthday

Question: in the tv series ‘the venture bros’, what is the name

Answer: Dr. Venture

Question: how did dr. venture dress his son in a speedsuit

Answer: a rite of passage

Question: when does dean get to wear a speedsuit

Answer: birthday

Question: in which tv series would you find the phrase ‘speedsuit’

Answer: Venture Bros.