Conservation banking

Conservation Banking

Conservation banking is an environmental market-based tool designed to offset adverse impacts to species of concern that are protected under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) through the creation of conservation banks. The ESA prohibits the “take” (link? Or define) of fish and wildlife species which are officially listed as endangered or threatened in their populations.  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 impacted species or habitat. Purchasing “credits” through a conservation bank is one such mitigation measure to remedy the loss.

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. 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. (citation) Rather than have developments offset their impacts by conserving small areas of habitat, conservation banking allows pooling multiple mitigation resources into a larger reserve. 

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.  There are two other forms of mitigation besides conservation banking, including in-lieu fee and permittee-responsible programs. In-Lieu fee programs allows a developer or permittee to contribute money into a USFWS approved fund in lieu of implementing their own mitigation. 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 developer or permittee takes on implementation and assumes liability for their own mitigation project to offset impacts.

Benefits

Importantly, 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. 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 1990’s. 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 impacts on the habitats or resources under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (7). 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 (6). Approval of conservation banks for various federally-listed species by the FWS, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, began throughout t been proposed for listing." (3)

Endangered Species Act Connection

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, endangered or threatened species and their respective critical habitat [link to ESA critical habitat page] and geographical range are protected for conservation with efforts made to restore the species and habitat back to well-being (5).

<add in section 7 connection for federal purchase?>

Under ESA Section 10 (b), takings are permitted only if the taking is incidental and otherwise lawful activity but requires that impacts be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable (5). For projects and development that will have a negative impact on an at-risk species’ habitat, such as reducing, modifying, or degrading its habitat, its developers are required to mitigate the impact. Conservation banks act as a mechanism for compensation when a species or habitat is impacted during development by providing credits that can be purchased by developers to offset their negative impact.

Function

Conservation banking is a market mechanism 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. These conservation credits can be sold to projects or developments that result in unavoidable and adverse impact of species from development in order to satisfy the requirements of a species or habitat conservation measures (2). Essentially, conservation banks act as a reserve for compensation for loss or damage to a species or their habitat.

Traditionally, preservation of some habitat area of an at-risk species were required by a project developer 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 then 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 Interagency Review Team, which can be composed of all or some of the following agencies; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Region IX of the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game.

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 (2). Agricultural lands, such as used for farming, ranching, timber operations, croplands or related, qualify as conservation banks for the designated species if the habitat is managed, restored, and functioning (6).

**include lifecycle and description about what happens when bank is full

Credits

Credits are essentially the currency of the conservation value associated with the habitat and/or species which may be impacted by development.  It is the ecological value of a species or habitat.  The Fish and Wildlife Service 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.  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. (9)

Locations currently used

There are currently ten states and Saipan, the largest of the Northern Mariana Islands in the US, with approved USFWS conservation banks. The states include Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Collectively, the nation’s 130 conservation banks is equivalent to over 160,000 acres of permanently protected land (1).

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 (3).

Additionally, other Californian species 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 (4).

Examples of Californian habitats include Contra Costa Goldfields, ephemeral drainages, riparian zones, vernal pools, and wetlands (4).

Future outlook

Two pieces of recent legislation were created which will likely have an impact on the future of conservation banking. The draft 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 DOI 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.

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).  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.

References

(1) https://www.fws.gov/endangered/landowners/conservation-banking.html (2) Conservation Banking Fact Sheet https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/conservation_banking.pdf (3) Results From A Survey of Conservation Banking Sponsors and Managers. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/landowners/pdf/CB%20Sponsors%20and%20Managers%20Survey%20Report_Final_092716.pdf (4) http://www.wildlandsinc.com/map/ (5) http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/text.htm (6) Conservation Bank: Incentives for Stewardship Fact Sheet https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Conservation-Banking/Home/Documents/conservation_banking.pdf (7) https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/mitigation-banking-factsheet (8) http://www.csgcalifornia.com/blog/legislature-adopts-new-approach-to-conservation-planning-and-mitigation/