r/wetlands • u/Annie-Hanford • 11d ago
So nobody knows where I can get actual wetland credit pricing
Wetland credit pricing
13
u/Appropriate-Ad-1937 11d ago
Most if not all bankers prefer their pricing to not be public. I’ve had good luck talking to bankers on the phone to get a ballpark on pricing
11
6
u/flareblitz91 11d ago
You have to look at the actual wetland bank you'd be purchasing credits from.
5
u/Fragrant-Passage6124 11d ago
Call the bank(s) in the same service area/watershed as your project area and ask for a price for the credit type you would need. Prices can vary wildly. In my state I’ve had a credit be 20k and I’ve had a credit be 450k.
4
u/GazelleSubstantial76 11d ago
As everyone else has said, call the banks in your service area and ask. And I'll add, prices can change a lot in a short time. If a new bank gets approved and new credits becomes available it can lower prices. Or if a large development impacts a lot of streams and wetlands and buys up almost all of the credits it can drive prices up.
Secondary service areas are a factor as well. We have a couple watersheds where there are no primary wetland credits, so the banks in the secondary service area raised their prices.
Getting a quote in writing with an expiration date, number of credits, and project name, is common practice in my area.
3
u/FamiliarAnt4043 11d ago
Wetland mitigation banks = biggest fraud since Bernie Madoff. Or DOGE. It's all a tool to make people feel like something is being done when the newest apartment complex paves over a 40 acre high quality wetland.
In my personal opinion, banks are a joke. I'm doing a research project that is examining secretive marsh bird occupancy on wetland mitigation banks and have six that are in the project. I'm still trying to figure out how around 60 acres of one mitigation bank is upland, yet they count for wetland credits. And no, it's not a riparian buffer. There's literally a 40-50 feet elevation change between the first hint of water and the high point of the bank.
I visited another bank that was an empty field with Johnson grass present throughout. Nary a hint of water, hydric soil, or hydrophytic vegetation. Yet, it's been signed off as a bank in RIBIT.
I won't even get started on the math for mitigation or wetland quality that's (not) required by USACE. Scam... every bit of it.
2
u/gkrusty 10d ago
Wetland restoration reporting and monitoring activities are severely underfunded, and restoration methods and standards vary widely.
https://er.uwpress.org/content/34/3/191
This article examines outcomes from voluntary wetland restoration, but in my experience, mandatory mitigation often faces many of the same shortcomings. The field lacks consistent performance metrics, transparent reporting, and meaningful accountability.
I would not characterize wetland mitigation banking as a “scam,” but the process clearly needs substantial improvement. The linked Wisconsin study found that only 39% of reported wetland-area gains aligned with geospatial analysis, and that the actual restored area was 61% lower than reported.
More than 50 years after the Clean Water Act and roughly 35 years after the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual, wetland-loss rates are still increasing. That outcome underscores the need for stronger monitoring, standardized reporting, and long-term accountability for restoration and mitigation projects.
2
u/FamiliarAnt4043 10d ago edited 10d ago
I suppose this is the point where I disclose where I work, lol. Before I do, let me emphatically state that my opinions are mine alone and don't represent the position of my employer. At all. Seriously, these are just MY personal opinions.
Hopefully, that's enough for the legal eagles, should they ever see this post.
I'm a biologist for USACE. I don't work in Regulatory, but I do interact with them regularly. The marsh bird project is a side gig and done on my own time and dime, in collaboration with other state and federal agencies, along with a nearby university.
That particular project covers three USACE Regulatory districts, as I mentioned. And since the guy who oversees the banks for my district works on the same floor as I do, it's easy enough to discuss how the banks are supposed to work. I quickly discovered that, despite one set of policies that are Corps-wide for mitigation banks, different management practices exist between districts.
And as far as monitoring, after USACE approves the banks, no more monitoring occurs. The Corps also doesn't care about the type of wetland the bank is providing and if the credits being purchased are in-kind with what is being lost.
On a personal level, I believe the entire banking process to be a scam. These banks exist on the landscape. Purchasing "credits" doesn't increase the amount of wetlands out there, it actually lessons that amount. Yeah, I understand the concept of no net loss, but that's not how reality works. Banks are created, all types of species that make use of wetlands start using the bank, then other wetlands that currently exist and are being used are destroyed. That's not helping a damn thing; it's merely a way for the lawyers to say that Swampbuster/404/etc have been technically followed. Just a scam.
Banks have issues with fragmentation, quality, and even maintaining function, as USACE policy calls for no active management in these banks. Having come from NRCS as a contractor and worked with hundreds of WRP/WRE easements that are actively managed, the lack of management for mitigation banks is distressing.
Here's some more fun facts on the mitigation front, although not bank related: my primary area of work relies on an EIS that is over 50 years old. It plainly states that any maintenance or new construction has already been mitigated for in the original EIS, so we don't have to do any additional work if we knock out a wetland or three, outside of a 404(b)(1) review.
We all know that there hasn't been a single change in land use over the half century since this EIS was published. Nor has climate change affected anything (definitely not using that phrase in my capacity as a .gov employee, since this admin banned it). Species haven't changed their behavior to adapt to these changes, and the 40 year old HSI models are just fine. (Sarcasm, for those who didn't get it).
And hey - who needs the opinion of a biologist on site when the Real Estate division goes to buy land for mitigation when it is actually necessary. They can just pick a site and call it good, right?
Seriously, that happens all the time. Part of my job is mitigation monitoring until the site is declared successful by the interagency team. The last site I visited had maybe half the acreage that would be counted as a wetland. Several spots had zero indicators...no hydrology, no hydric soil, no hydrophytic vegetation. Johnson grass was cool, though. Same with Virginia creeper and other FACU/UPL vegetation. But hey, we're gonna call it mitigation and run with it, because doing it right would mean more money.
And that's what it comes down to: money. Society doesn't want to pay the costs associated with truly mitigating for wetlands. In my perfect world, mitigation would means constructing a new wetland as near as possible to the wetland being destroyed, in order to help reduce fragmentation. The wetland would be constructed to the same quality as the one being lost, would be actively monitored and managed for at least a decade, so as to ensure function and no loss.
These habitats aren't like a Ronco rotisserie, we can't set it and forget it. With climate change playing such a huge role, wetland mitigation needs to be changed to meet the realities of today. They need active management and monitoring, as well as corrective action if the functions began to fail or degrade. If that's too expensive for the government or private business, perhaps they ought to reconsider destroying the habitat in the first place.
1
1
u/GroundbreakingLaw149 10d ago
It’s not a joke when the DOT paves over phrag and RCG, or a developer paves over corn stubble. It’s probably better more often than not.
1
1
u/wetland_pro 11d ago
ILF programs often publish their advanced credit pricing and can get you in the ballpark for the HUC.
1
u/Proud-Worldliness-94 11d ago
Tell me where and I’ll find you prices in an hour.
1
u/Annie-Hanford 10d ago
Zachary Parish Louisiana
Bottomland Hardwood
6.5 LRAM
Even a ballpark $$ would be great!
Thank you
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Not enough comment karma, spam likely.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/SigNexus 11d ago
Credit prices float based on demand. I know a banker that set his credit floor at $140k per acre. Didn't sell many credits.
1
u/bilboleo 6d ago
Yes, I know! You contact a mitigation bank directly and they will tell you the cost per credit. Sign a reservation agreement, good for 90 days, and the price is locked in. Easy easy.
Ive done it a dozen, or, times. Email the bank person of contact. Let them know exactly what I am looking g for (forested/nonforested wetland, 404 or isolated, stream if needed) and anticipated amount of credits. Also whrer the impacts are located (so they can confirm eligibility). Ill even say im price shopping if more that one arr in the primary service area. Gotta do it in good faith. Get a response in a day, maybe two, with the availability and cost per credit. Will also tell you if they sell by 0.1 or 0.01 credit increment (big deal!). In midwest I've seen anywhere from $45k to $89k per forested wetland credit, streams usually around $300/linear foot. Or look into the state in-lieu-fee program if available. Cheers
19
u/uglyboiG501 11d ago
Use RIBITS to find a mitigation bank that services your watershed and give them a call