Conservation banking

Last updated August 02, 2024

Conservation banking is an environmental market-based method designed to offset adverse effects, generally, to species of concern, are threatened, or endangered and protected under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) through the creation of conservation banks.^[1] Conservation banking can be viewed as a method of mitigation that allows permitting agencies to target various natural resources typically of value or concern, and it is generally contemplated as a protection technique to be implemented before the valued resource or species will need to be mitigated. The ESA prohibits the "taking" of fish and wildlife species which are officially listed as endangered or threatened in their populations.^[2] However, under section 7(a)(2) for Federal Agencies, and under section 10(a) for private parties, a take may be permissible for unavoidable impacts if there are conservation mitigation measures for the affected species or habitat.^[3] Purchasing “credits” through a conservation bank is one such mitigation measure to remedy the loss.^[1]

Conservation banks are permanently protected parcels of land with inherent abilities to harbor, preserve, and manage the survival of endangered and threatened species, along with their critical habitat.^[2] This allows the acquisition and protection of the parcels of land prior to future loss or disturbance to valued resources. Banks are often considered to be the more ecologically efficient option for mitigation because they generally incorporate larger tracts of land that enables higher quality habitat and range connectivity, thereby creating a stronger chance of survival and sustainability for the species.^[4] Rather than have developments offset their effects by conserving small areas of habitat, conservation banking allows pooling multiple mitigation resources into a larger reserve.^[1] The intention of conservation banking is to create a no-net loss of the intended resources. Conservation banking may be used by various entitles as a method of species and habitat protection, as long as it is approved by the permitting agency.

Background

Mitigation

Mitigation is the preservation of natural resources in order to offset unavoidable impacts to similar resources. Conservation banking mitigation is specific to species and their habitat which are protected under the Endangered Species Act.^[4] There are two other forms of mitigation besides conservation banking, including in-lieu fee and permittee-responsible programs. In-Lieu fee programs allows a permittee to contribute money into a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) approved fund in lieu of implementing their own mitigation. To date, In-Lieu fee programs have only applied to wetlands. The sponsor of the fund then implements an appropriate mitigation project when enough money has been collected through the fund. In these situations, the fund sponsor is fully liable for the success of the mitigation. The second alternative form of mitigation is the Permittee-Responsible program, which allows the permittee takes on implementation and assumes liability for their own mitigation project to offset effects.

Benefits

There is generally greater security associated with a conservation bank. This is due to the stringent performance standards imposed on bank owners by the USFWS, which also requires them to have adequate funding into perpetuity, and to have long term management plans. Purchasing of credits by the easement holder from the landowner creates a legal contract, known as a conservation easement. The conservation easement binds the landowner to uphold the requirements of the conservation bank.^[1] Another advantage is that purchasing credits from a conservation bank ensures that species and/or habitat protection is already in place before the impact occurs. In addition, liability for habitat and species mitigation success is shifted to the conservation bank owner is a benefit to the developer or permittee.

History

Conservation banking is derived from wetland mitigation banks that were created in the early 1990s. Through Federal agency efforts, mitigation banks were created to focus on preserving wetlands, streams, and other aquatic habitats or resources and offered compensatory mitigation credits to offset unavoidable effects on the habitats or resources under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.^[5] After the “Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 FR 5860558614)” was published in 1995, California contemporaneously led efforts to create conservation banks as to further increase regional conservation due to growing development threatening species and their habitat.^[1] Approval of conservation banks for various federally-listed species by the USFWS, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, began throughout the early 1990s.^[4] Collectively, the nation’s 130 conservation banks is equivalent to over 160,000 acres of permanently protected land.^[1]

Endangered Species Act Connection

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, endangered or threatened species and their respective critical habitat and geographical range are protected for conservation with efforts made to restore the species and habitat back to well-being.^[3] Under ESA Section 10(b), takings are permitted only if the taking is incidental and otherwise lawful activity but requires that effects be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.^[3] For projects and development that will damage an at-risk species’ habitat, such as reducing, modifying, or degrading its habitat, its permittees are required to mitigate the impact.^[3] Conservation banks act as a mechanism for compensation when a species or habitat is affected during development by providing credits that can be purchased by permitees to offset their negative impact.^[1]

Function

Conservation banking is a market program that increases the bank owner or landowner's stewardship and incentive for permanently protecting their land by providing them a set number of habitat or species credits that the respective owners are able to sell.^[1] In order to satisfy the requirements of a species or habitat conservation measures, these conservation credits can be sold to projects or developments that result in unavoidable and adverse impacts to species.^[1] Essentially, conservation banks offsite the cost to mitigate the loss or damage to a species and/or their habitat.

Traditionally, preservation of some habitat area of an at-risk species were required by a project permitee during development. This could result in habitat that became isolated, small, with reduced connectivity or functionality, and was more costly to maintain. Comparatively, conservation banks are more cost effective as they are able to maintain larger blocks of land with greater functionality for a species, such as allowing habitat connectivity. For purchasers, this is also time-effective by allowing them to forgo their responsibility of handling on-or-off mitigation measures that can run into administrative delays due to the USFWS review and approval process. After the public or private party purchases credits, a bank transfer occurs between the project party and banker. The banker is then perpetually bound to conserve and manage the conservation bank.

Creation Process

In California, a multi-agency process oversees the review and approval of conservation banks by the Inter-agency Review Team, which can be composed of all or some of the following agencies; typically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. After review and approval, the Inter-agency Review Team and conservation bank sponsor signs a legally-binding conservation bank enabling instrument, which details the responsibilities of each party and includes a management plan, endowment funding agreement, and other documents detailing the operations of the conservation bank.

Unless the lands have been previously listed or designated for other conservation purposes, Private, Tribal, State, and local government lands are all considered eligible to be conservation banks.^[1] Agricultural lands, such as used for farming, ranching, timber operations, croplands or related, may be suitable for the establishment of a conservation bank if the special-status species habitat on-site is intact or restored; however, agricultural and forestry activities may need to be modified, reduced, or stopped entirely if necessary to protect the conservation values of the land.^[1]

Management Plan

Establishment of a bank requires a management plan that outlines necessary management activities and endowment funds.^[2] The intention of the plan is to describe the long-term management activities of the conservation bank.^[1] The plan describes restricted and allowed activities and provides guidance on all monitoring and reporting requirements.^[2] The minimal requirements of a management plan includes:

A full geophysical description of the site, including the area, geographical setting, neighboring land uses, and any relevant cultural or historic features located in the site.^[2]
Identifies the biological resources within the bank, such as a vegetation map.^[2]
Describes restricted and permitted activities that can occur on-site^[2]
The objectives and biological goals of the conservation bank is described.^[2]
All management activities are fully described for the conservation bank in order to meet the objectives and biological goals, such as necessary ecological restoration of its habitats, incorporation of public use and access, and budgeting requirements.^[2]
Necessary monitoring schedules, including special management plan activities.^[2]
If necessary, outlines how future management will occur, such as decision trees or similar.^[2]

Creation of the bank must also include plans for remedial action in case bank owners are unable to fulfill their agreements. Remedial actions can include forfeiting the property to a third party to uphold the requirements of the bank or posting a bond valued equivalent to the property.^[2] Typically acts of nature, including earthquakes, floods, or fires, are excluded from liability of the bank owner.^[2]

Credits

Credits are essentially the currency of the conservation value associated with the habitat and/or species which may be affected by development. It is the ecological value of a species or habitat. The permitting agency is responsible for determining the credits available at any given bank, based on the number of species and the habitat characteristic for those species, on the land owned by the bank. They then allocate the appropriate number of credits to the bank owner, who can then establish the price through negotiation with agencies.^[6] Pricing of conservation credits are variable based on the type of species impacted through a developmental take. Additionally, the market forces of supply and demand largely dictate the price of any given credit, and the value may fluctuate based on many other economic factors such as land value, competition, and speculation about development in a certain habitat area. Current data suggests that conservation credits range in price from a low of $1500 per mitigation of a Gopher Tortoise to as much as $325,000 for vernal pool preservation.^[7]

Locations currently used

There are currently fourteen states and Saipan, the largest of the Northern Mariana Islands, with approved USFWS conservation banks. These states include Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.^[8]

Nationally, some species with the largest respective habitat coverage include: American burying beetle, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, calippe silverspot butterfly, Florida panther, golden-cheeked warbler, lesser prairie chicken, Utah prairie dog, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp.^[4]

In 1995, California was the first state to create a conservation bank and continues to be the national leader in number of conservation banks, with over 30 established banks. Species benefited in these banks include the burrowing owl, coastal sage scrub, delta smelt, California giant garter snake, longfin smelt, California salmonids, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, Santa Ana River Woollystar, Swainson's Hawk, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle.^[6] Examples of Californian habitats include ephemeral drainages, riparian zones, vernal pools, and wetlands.^[6]

Future outlook

Two pieces of recent legislation were created, which will likely affect the future of conservation banking. A draft of the Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy was proposed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife Service in September, 2016 with the intention to create a mechanism for the US Department of the Interior to comply with Executive order (80 FR 68743), which directs Federal agencies that manage natural resources “to avoid and then minimize harmful effects to land, water, wildlife, and other ecological resources (natural resources) caused by land- or -water-disturbing activities…” This policy would provide guidance to the USFWS about planning and implementation of compensatory mitigation strategies. If adopted, the policy would require a shift from project-by-project compensatory mitigation approaches to broader, landscape oriented approaches such as conservation banking.^[7]

In addition, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 2087, which will enable large conservation goals to be achieved through the creation of advance mitigation credits associated with FWS Regional Conservation Investment Strategies (RCIS).^[9] This is important for the future of conservation banking because the bill allows for consideration of mitigation for impacts to wildlife and habitat in conservation strategy planning and decision making.

Related Research Articles

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is a U.S. federal government agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior which oversees the management of fish, wildlife, and natural habitats in the United States. The mission of the agency is "working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people."

National Wildlife RefugeSystem (NWRS) is a system of protected areas of the United States managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), an agency within the Department of the Interior. The National Wildlife Refuge System is the system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. Since President Theodore Roosevelt designated Florida's Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge as the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the system has grown to over 568 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts encompassing about 856,000,000 acres (3,464,109 km²).

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is the primary law in the United States for protecting and conserving imperiled species. Designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation", the ESA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973. The Supreme Court of the United States described it as "the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species enacted by any nation". The purposes of the ESA are two-fold: to prevent extinction and to recover species to the point where the law's protections are not needed. It therefore "protect[s] species and the ecosystems upon which they depend" through different mechanisms. For example, section 4 requires the agencies overseeing the Act to designate imperiled species as threatened or endangered. Section 9 prohibits unlawful 'take,' of such species, which means to "harass, harm, hunt..." Section 7 directs federal agencies to use their authorities to help conserve listed species. The Act also serves as the enacting legislation to carry out the provisions outlined in The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Supreme Court found that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting" the ESA "was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." The Act is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). FWS and NMFS have been delegated by the Act with the authority to promulgate any rules and guidelines within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to implement its provisions.

Vernal pools, also called vernal ponds or ephemeral pools, are seasonal pools of water that provide habitat for distinctive plants and animals. They are considered to be a distinctive type of wetland usually devoid of fish, and thus allow the safe development of natal amphibian and insect species unable to withstand competition or predation by fish. Certain tropical fish lineages have however adapted to this habitat specifically.

Environmental mitigation, compensatory mitigation, or mitigation banking, are terms used primarily by the United States government and the related environmental industry to describe projects or programs intended to offset known impacts to an existing historic or natural resource such as a stream, wetland, endangered species, archeological site, paleontological site or historic structure. Environmental mitigation is typically a part of an environmental crediting system established by governing bodies which involves allocating debits and credits. Debits occur in situations where a natural resource has been destroyed or severely impaired and credits are given in situations where a natural resource has been deemed to be improved or preserved. Therefore, when an entity such as a business or individual has a "debit" they are required to purchase a "credit". In some cases credits are bought from "mitigation banks" which are large mitigation projects established to provide credit to multiple parties in advance of development when such compensation cannot be achieved at the development site or is not seen as beneficial to the environment. Crediting systems can allow credit to be generated in different ways. For example, in the United States, projects are valued based on what the intentions of the project are which may be to preserve, enhance, restore or create (PERC) a natural resource.

The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) of the United States protects federally managed wilderness areas designated for preservation in their natural condition. Activity on formally designated wilderness areas is coordinated by the National Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness areas are managed by four federal land management agencies: the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.

The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument is a National Monument in southern California. It includes portions of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto mountain ranges, the northernmost ones of the Peninsular Ranges system. The national monument covers portions of Riverside County, west of the Coachella Valley, approximately 100 miles (160 km) southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has a number of programs aimed at Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation, which include lands traditionally inhabited by the Mission blue butterfly, an endangered species. A recovery plan, drawn up by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1984, outlined the need to protect Mission blue habitat and to repair habitat damaged by urbanization, off highway vehicle traffic, and invasion by exotic, non-native plants. An example of the type of work being done by governmental and citizen agencies can be found at the Marin Headlands in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In addition, regular wildfires have opened new habitat conservation opportunities as well as damaging existing ones.

Branchinecta sandiegonensis is a rare species of crustacean in the family Branchinectidae and the order Anostraca, the fairy shrimp. Commonly known as the San Diego fairy shrimp, it is named after the vernal pools found in San Diego County, California, where this species was originally discovered. It is also a federally listed endangered species of the United States.

Mitigation banking is a market-based system that involves restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for unavoidable impacts to a wetland in another location. It involves a system of mitigation banks, sites where projects to restore, create, or enhance wetlands can be carried out in advance of impacts. The outcomes of these projects are valued through the creation of compensatory mitigation credits that can be purchased from mitigation banks to offset the negative impacts of developments or agriculture expansion on wetlands and aquatic habitats. This process is generally conducted with the aim of achieving no net loss of function and value for specific aquatic habitats, such as in terms of the biodiversity or ecosystem services provided by a wetland.

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, the Ventura marsh milk-vetch, is a short-lived, herbaceous perennial in the pea family Fabaceae,

The copperbelly water snake or copperbelly is a subspecies of nonvenomous colubrid snake endemic to the Central United States.

The Loch Lomond Vernal Pool Ecological Reserve is a nature reserve of 8.22 acres (33,300 m²) in the community of Loch Lomond in Lake County, California. It is one of 119 ecological reserves managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The ecological reserve system was authorized by the state legislature in 1968 for the purpose of conservation and protection of rare plants, animals and habitats.

Biodiversity banking, also known as biodiversity trading, conservation banking, mitigation banking, habitat banking, compensatory habitat, or set-asides, describes a market-based framework for biodiversity offsetting where offsets can be traded in the form of credits to offset negative environmental impacts of development projects or activities. This involves biodiversity banks, areas with biodiversity value. On the site of a biodiversity bank, conservation activities may be carried out to preserve, restore, enhance, or conserve biodiversity. The outcomes of projects carried out at biodiversity banks are valued in the form of credits, which can be purchased as a way to offset unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, often with the aim of achieving no net loss of biodiversity.

"No net loss" is the United States government's overall policy goal regarding wetlands preservation. The goal of the policy is to balance wetland loss due to economic development with wetlands reclamation, mitigation, and restorations efforts, so that the total acreage of wetlands in the country does not decrease, but remains constant or increases. To achieve the objective of no net loss, the federal government utilizes several different environmental policy tools which legally protect wetlands, provide rules and regulations for citizens and corporations interacting with wetlands, and incentives for the preservation and conservation of wetlands. Given the public benefits provided by wetland ecosystem services, such as flood control, nutrient farming, habitat, water filtration, and recreational area, the estimations that over half the acreage of wetlands in the United States has been lost within the last three centuries is of great concern to local, state, and federal agencies as well as the public interest they serve.

A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a required part of an application for an Incidental Take Permit, a permit issued under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) to private entities undertaking projects that might result in the destruction of an endangered or threatened species. It is a planning document that ensures that the anticipated take of a listed species will be minimized or mitigated by conserving the habitat upon which the species depend, thereby contributing to the recovery of the species as a whole.

<i>Sierra Club v. Babbitt</i> United States District Court case

Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1274, is a United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama case in which the Sierra Club and several other environmental organizations and private citizens challenged the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Plaintiffs filed action seeking declaratory injunctive relief regarding two incidental take permits (ITPs) issued by the FWS for the construction of two isolated high-density housing complexes in habitat of the endangered Alabama beach mouse. The District Court ruled that the FWS must reconsider its decision to allow high-density development on the Alabama coastline that might harm the endangered Alabama beach mouse. The District Court found that the FWS violated both the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by permitting construction on the dwindling beach mouse habitat.

Biodiversity offsetting is a system used predominantly by planning authorities and developers to fully compensate for biodiversity impacts associated with economic development, through the planning process. In some circumstances, biodiversity offsets are designed to result in an overall biodiversity gain. Offsetting is generally considered the final stage in a mitigation hierarchy, whereby predicted biodiversity impacts must first be avoided, minimised and reversed by developers, before any remaining impacts are offset. The mitigation hierarchy serves to meet the environmental policy principle of "No Net Loss" of biodiversity alongside development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phoenix Vernal Pools</span> Park

The Phoenix Vernal Pools are located in Fair Oaks, California, a suburb of Sacramento city around 20 miles east of the city of Sacramento and north of highway 50. This land consists of seasonally inundated wetlands that form after winter rains. The climate type of Phoenix Vernal Pools is classified as Mediterranean, receiving 24 in (610 mm) of rain per year. The rainwater percolates into the soil until it reaches an impermeable hardpan that causes an elevated water table, forming the vernal pools. The Phoenix Vernal Pool ecosystem is relatively unique as is supports many species of fauna and flora endemic to vernal pools.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan</span>

The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (SCVHCP), also known as the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, is an initiative issued in 2012 by the County of Santa Clara, the City of San José, the City of Morgan Hill, the City of Gilroy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). These governmental agencies are collectively called the "Local Partners" in regards to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. The plan's goal is to protect and encourage the growth of endangered species in Santa Clara County. It is a 50-year plan, costing an estimated $660 million as of 2012.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "Conservation Banking Incentives for Stewardship" (PDF). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 "Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Conservation Banks" (PDF). United States Department of the Interior. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
1 2 3 4 "Full text of the Endangered Species Act". NOAA Fisheries. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
1 2 3 4 "Results from a survey of conservation banking sponsors and managers" (PDF). Department of Interior Office of Policy Analysis. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
↑ "Mitigation Banking Fact Sheet" . Retrieved 3 December 2016.
1 2 3 "California Mitigation Banks". Wildlands, Inc. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
1 2 Department of the Interior (2016). "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy". Federal Register. 81 (171).
↑ "For Landowners Conservation Banking". U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
↑ "Legislature Adopts New Approach to Conservation Planning and Mitigation". Conservation Strategy Group. 1 September 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2016.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:0-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "Conservation Banking Incentives for Stewardship" (PDF). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved 3 December 2016.

[:1-2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 "Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Conservation Banks" (PDF). United States Department of the Interior. Retrieved 3 December 2016.

[:2-3] 1 2 3 4 "Full text of the Endangered Species Act". NOAA Fisheries. Retrieved 3 December 2016.

[:3-4] 1 2 3 4 "Results from a survey of conservation banking sponsors and managers" (PDF). Department of Interior Office of Policy Analysis. Retrieved 3 December 2016.

[5] "Mitigation Banking Fact Sheet" . Retrieved 3 December 2016.

[:4-6] 1 2 3 "California Mitigation Banks". Wildlands, Inc. Retrieved 3 December 2016.

[:5-7] 1 2 Department of the Interior (2016). "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Act Compensatory Mitigation Policy". Federal Register. 81 (171).

[8] "For Landowners Conservation Banking". U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved 3 December 2016.

[9] "Legislature Adopts New Approach to Conservation Planning and Mitigation". Conservation Strategy Group. 1 September 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]