evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

California Conservation and Mitigation Banking Program (USA)

United States of America · Sacramento · See the United States of America profile · See the Sacramento profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 64% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since California's first conservation bank in 1995, CDFW has approved 97 banks covering about 73,948 acres (2024), generating 1,406.9 new credits in the latest reporting year alone — though independent research finds approvals average 761-1,740 days against a 270-day legal deadli

97
Established conservation/mitigation banks (2024)
~73,948 acres
Total acreage covered by banks (2024)
80
Banks under review (2024)
1,406.9
New mitigation credits created (Nov 2023-Sept 2024)
1,413
Additional acres conserved (Nov 2023-Sept 2024)
761 days
Average approval timeline (CDFW data)
1,337 days
Average approval timeline (US Army Corps of Engineers records)
1,740 days
Average approval timeline (bank-sponsor survey)
270 days
Statutory approval deadline

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Period
1995-present
Keywords
species conservation banking, compensatory mitigation, endangered species, habitat credits, land conservation

Context

California pioneered species conservation banking with its first bank, Carlsbad Highlands, in 1995. The programme was formalised in statute by Senate Bill 1148 (2012, effective 2013), which gave the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) authority to review, approve and charge fees for conservation and mitigation banks that compensate unavoidable development impacts on threatened and endangered species and their habitat.

Results

CDFW's 2024 Report to the Legislature counts 97 established banks covering approximately 73,948 acres statewide, with 80 further banks under review. In the most recent reporting year (November 2023-September 2024) alone, banks created 1,406.9 new mitigation credits and conserved an additional 1,413 acres.

Conclusions

Independent research by the Environmental Policy Innovation Center found that actual bank-approval timelines average 761 days by CDFW's own data, 1,337 days according to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers records, and 1,740 days per a bank-sponsor survey — all far exceeding the state's 270-day statutory deadline. CDFW's own last five legislative reports show repeated non-compliance, attributed to staff turnover (2-5 project managers per approval), understaffing, and late-stage requirement changes; one interviewed practitioner estimated the state could achieve '10x more restoration' if timelines were met.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Very high (> €5M) — No aggregate programme cost figures were published; given the statewide scope (97 banks, ~73,948 acres) and 30-year duration, a conservative very_high cost-band estimate is used.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — The programme has run continuously since 1995 (first bank) and was formalised in statute in 2012/2013 — long band, still active with 80 banks under review.
Staffing & skills
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, regulator), private/nonprofit bank sponsors, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (federal co-reviewer)

Conditions for success

  • statutory authority (SB 1148, 2012) giving CDFW clear review, approval and fee-setting powers
  • standardized statewide credit system enabling market-based habitat mitigation

Common failure modes

  • chronic multi-year non-compliance with the state's 270-day statutory approval deadline (actual averages 761-1,740 days depending on data source)
  • attributed to staff turnover (2-5 project managers per approval), understaffing, and late-stage requirement changes
  • a practitioner estimated the state could achieve '10x more restoration' if timelines were met

Where it fits

Governance type
state regulatory agency
Scale
statewide (California)
Income level
high-income (USA)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful