FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

FEMA Ecosystem

Service Value Updates

June 2022

This page intentionally left blank

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Table of Contents

1. Background and Purpose of this Report ................................................................................... 1

2. Classifying Ecosystem Services ................................................................................................. 5

3. Methods for Valuing Ecosystem Services ................................................................................. 9

4. Ecosystem Service Value Updates ......................................................................................... 11

4.1. Summary of Proposed Land Cover Categories and Ecosystem Service Values ....... 11

4.2. Summary of Changes to FEMA’s 2016 Land Cover Categories and Ecosystem

Service Values .............................................................................................................. 12

5. Using Ecosystem Service Values in the FEMA BCA Toolkit .................................................... 17

5.1. Identify each Land Cover Category Associated with the Mitigation Action ............... 17

5.2. Ensure Each Land Cover Category Meets Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria ......... 22

5.3. Select an Appropriate Project Useful Life ................................................................... 23

5.4. Conceptual Examples ................................................................................................... 26

5.5. “Real World” Examples ................................................................................................ 29

Appendix A. Forest .......................................................................................................................... 37

Land Cover Definition ................................................................................................................ 37

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria ........................................................................................... 37

Mitigation Project Use Cases .................................................................................................... 38

Project Useful Life Considerations ........................................................................................... 39

Summary of Value Updates ...................................................................................................... 39

Ecosystem Service Values ........................................................................................................ 40

Appendix B. Coastal Wetland ......................................................................................................... 53

Land Cover Definition ................................................................................................................ 53

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria ........................................................................................... 53

Mitigation Project Use Cases .................................................................................................... 55

Project Useful Life Considerations ........................................................................................... 55

Summary of Value Updates ...................................................................................................... 56

Ecosystem Service Values ........................................................................................................ 57

Appendix C. Inland Wetland ........................................................................................................... 71

Land Cover Definition ................................................................................................................ 71

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria ........................................................................................... 71

Mitigation Project Use Cases .................................................................................................... 73

Project Useful Life Considerations ........................................................................................... 73

Summary of Values Updates .................................................................................................... 73

Ecosystem Service Value .......................................................................................................... 74

Appendix D. Urban Green Open Space .......................................................................................... 85

Land Cover Definition ................................................................................................................ 85

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria ........................................................................................... 85

Mitigation Project Use Cases .................................................................................................... 86

Project Useful Life Considerations ........................................................................................... 87

Summary of Value Updates ...................................................................................................... 88

Ecosystem Service Values ........................................................................................................ 88

Appendix E. Rural Green Open Space ............................................................................................ 99

Land Cover Definition ................................................................................................................ 99

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria ........................................................................................... 99

Mitigation Project Use Cases .................................................................................................. 100

Project Useful Life Considerations ......................................................................................... 101

Summary of Value Updates .................................................................................................... 101

Ecosystem Service Values ...................................................................................................... 102

Appendix F. Riparian ..................................................................................................................... 111

Land Cover Definition .............................................................................................................. 111

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria ......................................................................................... 112

Mitigation Project Use Cases .................................................................................................. 113

Project Useful Life Considerations ......................................................................................... 114

Summary of Value Updates .................................................................................................... 114

Ecosystem Service Values ...................................................................................................... 115

Appendix G. Coral Reefs ............................................................................................................... 131

Land Cover Definition .............................................................................................................. 131

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria ......................................................................................... 131

Mitigation Project Use Cases .................................................................................................. 132

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

iii

Project Useful Life Considerations ......................................................................................... 133

Summary of Value Updates .................................................................................................... 133

Ecosystem Service Values ...................................................................................................... 134

Appendix H. Beaches and Dunes ................................................................................................. 143

Land Cover Definition .............................................................................................................. 143

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria ......................................................................................... 143

Mitigation Project Use Cases .................................................................................................. 144

Summary of Value Updates .................................................................................................... 144

Ecosystem Service Values ...................................................................................................... 145

Appendix I. Shellfish Reefs ........................................................................................................... 151

Land Cover Definition .............................................................................................................. 151

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria ......................................................................................... 151

Mitigation Project Use Cases .................................................................................................. 152

Project Useful Life Considerations ......................................................................................... 152

Summary of Value Updates .................................................................................................... 153

Ecosystem Service Values ...................................................................................................... 154

Appendix J. Detailed Change Log: Added and Removed Studies and Values since 2016 update

....................................................................................................................................... 159

Values Added ........................................................................................................................... 159

Values Removed ...................................................................................................................... 165

References .................................................................................................................................... 171

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

This page intentionally left blank

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

1. Background and Purpose of this Report

Natural disasters are increasing in frequency and severity in the United States (U.S.) and around the

globe. Climate change and other factors—including land use planning decisions that have allowed

people to live in hazard-prone areas—are effectuating the increase. Since 1980, the U.S. has

experienced 323 weather and climate disasters that reached or exceeded $1 billion in damages (as

of April 2022), with the total cost exceeding $2.195 trillion.

The impacts of these natural disasters

are compounded by the effects of COVID-19 and tend to disproportionately impact low-income

communities and communities of color, further exacerbating inequity.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides billions of dollars each year to

communities through its Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs to reduce or eliminate long-

term risk from natural disasters. FEMA defines hazard mitigation as “Any sustained action taken to

reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects.”

HMA programs include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient

Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA). FEMA also provides

hazard mitigation funding through the Public Assistance (PA) program, sometimes referred to as 406

Hazard Mitigation.

FEMA requires that hazard mitigation projects be cost-effective to the federal government; therefore,

the project must demonstrate a Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) that compares the net present value of a

project’s future benefits and costs. A Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.0 or greater indicates that the risk

reduction benefits of a project outweigh the costs, thereby deeming the project “cost-effective” and a

worthwhile and eligible investment for the federal government. A BCA is required for the vast majority

of FEMA-funded hazard mitigation activities, with few exceptions (e.g., 5% Initiative projects). For this

reason, FEMA developed a BCA Toolkit to assist subapplicants in conducting BCAs for a range of

mitigation actions.

In recent years, FEMA began to recognize and emphasize the value of investing in Nature-Based

Solutions (NBS) for mitigating the impacts of floods, wildfires, droughts and other natural hazards.

FEMA defines NBS as

“Sustainable planning, design, environmental management, and engineering

practices that weave natural features or processes into the built environment to build more resilient

communities.”

NBS can include the use of natural features such as wetlands, open space and

urban green infrastructure to help buffer communities from damages caused by natural hazards,

thereby reducing costs to taxpayers and harm to vulnerable communities. For example, coastal

wetlands can reduce coastal storm damage, riverfront trail systems can capture and store water

during floods, forested areas managed for vegetation can serve as wildfire buffers, and urban trees

can mitigate the impacts of dangerous heatwaves. Economic studies have shown that NBS can often

be more cost-effective than traditional, man-made solutions, such as levees or seawalls, while

providing multiple community and environmental benefits. Ecosystem services are an important

benefit of hazard mitigation projects that incorporate NBS, and they also establish hazard mitigation

approaches that are not considered NBS, per se (e.g., acquisition and relocation can improve

floodplain health in the footprint of the removed structures).

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

FEMA’s new emphasis on NBS has been reflected through several important policy advances and

updates to the BCA Toolkit that have made it easier for subapplicants to calculate the benefits of

NBS in a BCA. A key foundation for these advances has been the adoption of monetary values for

“ecosystem services” into the BCA Toolkit. Ecosystem services are defined by FEMA as “direct or

indirect contributions that ecosystems make to the environment and human populations.” Pre-

calculated ecosystem service values are embedded into FEMA’s BCA Toolkit, calculated as “dollar

per acre per year” ($/acre/year) values according to land cover type, creating a relatively simple

framework for subapplicants who would like to value the ecosystem services associated with their

mitigation project.

FEMA’s notable policy updates related to ecosystem services

have included:

 2013: Creation of first ecosystem services policy. FEMA issued its first ecosystem services policy

in 2013,

incorporating dollar values for ecosystem services into the BCA Toolkit for the

“riparian” and “green open space” land cover categories. Earth Economics developed the

framework and values for these land cover categories and associated ecosystem services, under

subcontract to Ideation, Inc. Note that this policy has now been superseded by the 2016 and

2020 policies below.

 2016: Update and expansion of ecosystem services policy. FEMA issued another ecosystem

services policy in 2016,

which introduced ecosystem service values for new land cover

categories (“wetlands,” “forest,” and “marine and estuary”). The policy also introduced new

eligible activities, including floodplain and stream restoration, green infrastructure,

post-wildfire

mitigation and aquifer storage and recovery. Earth Economics developed the values for these

new land cover categories, and updated values for existing land cover categories, under

subcontract to—and with significant input and guidance from—CDM Federal Programs

Corporation, which were summarized for FEMA in the 2015 report Update to FEMA Ecosystem

Services Values.

Note that ecosystem services were referred to as “environmental benefits” in both the 2013 and 2016 policies but will be

referred to in this report only as “ecosystem services” to avoid confusion.

In the supporting materials for FEMA’s 2016 environmental benefits policies, the agency had not yet adopted the term

“Nature-Based Solutions.” Instead, it used the term “green infrastructure,” which it defined as “A sustainable approach to

natural landscape preservation and storm water management that can be used for hazard mitigation activities as well as

provide additional ecosystem benefits.” However, since then, it appears that FEMA has moved towards the term “Nature-

Based Solutions” to refer to a similar set of concepts, as seen in the definition above. In the 2020 guide Building

Community Resilience with Nature-Based Solutions, FEMA notes that the term “nature-based solutions” is largely

interchangeable with terms used by other agencies and organizations such as “green infrastructure,” “natural

infrastructure,” or “Engineering with Nature”® (a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers program). For consistency with FEMA’s

approach, this report uses the term “Nature-Based Solutions” to encompass all these related terms, though it is recognized

that other agencies and experts use the terms in different ways (e.g., EPA uses Green Infrastructure to refer to specific

kinds of stormwater practices).

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

 2020: Removal of limitations on use of ecosystem services in BCA. One limitation of the 2013

and 2016 policies was that projects were required to achieve a benefit-cost ratio of 0.75 using

“traditional” risk reduction benefits, such as reduced damage to structures, before the

ecosystem service values could be included in a BCA. However, in September 2020, FEMA

released a significant policy update, building directly on the 2013 and 2016 policies. FEMA

Policy FP-108-024-02, titled “Ecosystem Service Benefits in Benefit-Cost Analysis for FEMA’s

Mitigation Programs Policy,”

recognized that the natural environment is an important

component of a community’s resilience strategy, and removed the 0.75 benefit-cost ratio

threshold requirement. In other words, nature-based hazard mitigation projects could now be

considered cost-effective based on the value of their ecosystem services alone. The policy is still

relatively new at the time of writing this report, but it seems likely that this policy will reduce the

technical and monetary burden on subapplicants that would like to advance nature-based

solutions, by eliminating the need for complex modeling in many cases, and open FEMA’s hazard

mitigation funding programs to a larger pool of nature-based project types and subapplicants.

The purpose of this report is to provide details and guidance on a proposed, updated set of land

cover categories and ecosystem service values for FEMA’s BCA Toolkit. Key changes to the FEMA’s

2016 ecosystem service values, referenced above, include an expansion in the number of land cover

categories (from the existing 5 to 10), incorporation of many additional source studies for values

associated with the new and existing land cover categories and removal of some source studies. This

report also includes more detailed guidance on how to interpret and use the land cover categories in

the context of a mitigation project BCA, including hypothetical project examples.

This report is structured as follows:

 Classifying Ecosystem Services: This section describes the framework used for classifying and

defining ecosystem services.

 Methods for Valuing Ecosystem Services. This section summarizes the valuation methods used

by the source studies that are the basis for the proposed ecosystem service value updates.

 Proposed Updates to FEMA’s Ecosystem Service Values: This section summarizes the land cover

categories and associated ecosystem service values proposed in this update, summarizes

changes to FEMA’s 2016 ecosystem service values, provides definitions for each land cover

category, and summarizes project useful life (PUL) considerations for each land cover category.

 Using Ecosystem Service Values in the FEMA BCA Toolkit: This section provides conceptual and

real examples of how the land cover categories and ecosystem service values can be used in the

context of a BCA for a mitigation project.

 Appendices A–I: Each of these Appendices contains detailed information for one of the 10 land

cover categories, including the proposed ecosystem service values associated with the category,

PUL considerations for that land cover category, Feasibility & Effectiveness criteria for that land

cover category and mitigation project use cases that might involve that land cover category

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

(including both conceptual and real examples). Finally, under each ecosystem service value

associated with a given land cover category, there is a description of the source study/studies

that were used to develop the value, the methods for deriving the value and discussion.

 Appendix J: This appendix provides more details on source studies and values that have been

added or removed in comparison with FEMA’s 2016 ecosystem service values.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

2. Classifying Ecosystem Services

Nature contributes substantial value to the economy, providing essential goods and services that

communities, governments and businesses depend on. These goods and services are collectively

known as “ecosystem services,” and are often defined as the benefits that people receive from

nature. Ecosystem services are essential to human survival and economic prosperity, and include

clean air, drinkable water, nourishing food, hazard risk reduction, habitat for fish and wildlife and a

stable climate.

In 2001, an international coalition of over 1,360 scientists and experts from the United Nations

Environmental Program, the World Bank and the World Resources Institute initiated an assessment

of the effects of ecosystem change on human well-being. A key goal of the assessment was to

develop a better understanding of the interactions between ecological and social systems, and in

turn develop a knowledge base of concepts and methods that would improve our ability to “…assess

options that can enhance the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being.”

This study

produced the landmark Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which classified ecosystem services into

four broad categories according to how they benefit people:

 Provisioning Services provide the physical materials that economies and communities use.

Community gardens grow food. Rivers provide drinking water, as well as fish for food.

 Regulating Services are benefits obtained from ecosystem processes. Intact ecosystems provide

regulation of climate, water quality/supply and soil erosion control. They also keep disease

organisms in check.

 Supporting Services refer to the habitats which support food webs and all life on the planet.

 Information Services allow humans to interact meaningfully with nature. These services include

providing spiritually significant species and natural areas, natural places for recreation and

opportunities for scientific research and education.

Table 1: Categories of Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem Service Definition Economic

Value Assigned

Provisioning

Energy and Raw

Materials

Providing fuel, fiber, fertilizer, minerals, and energy -

Food Provisioning Producing crops, fish, game, and fruits X

Medicinal

Resources

Providing traditional medicines, pharmaceuticals, and

assay organisms

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Ecosystem Service Definition Economic

Value Assigned

Ornamental

Resources

Providing resources for clothing, jewelry, handicraft,

worship, and decoration

Water Storage Providing long-term reserves of usable water via storage

in lakes, ponds, aquifers, and soil moisture

Regulating

Air Quality Providing clean, breathable air X

Biological Control Providing pest, weed, and disease control X

Climate Regulation Supporting a stable climate at global and local levels

through carbon sequestration and other processes

Hazard Risk

Reduction

Preventing and mitigating natural hazards such as floods,

hurricanes, fires, and droughts

Pollination Pollinating wild and domestic plant species via wind,

insects, birds, or other animals

Soil Formation Accumulating soils (e.g., via plant matter decomposition or

sediment deposition in riparian/coastal systems) for

agricultural and ecosystem integrity

Soil Quality Maintaining soil fertility and capacity to process waste

inputs (bioremediation)

Erosion Control Retaining arable land, slope stability, and coastal integrity X

Water Filtration Removing water pollutants via soil filtration and

transformation by vegetation and microbial communities

Water Supply

Regulating the rate of water flow through an environment

and ensuring adequate water availability for all water users

Supporting

Habitat Providing shelter, promoting growth of species, and

maintaining biological diversity

Pollination Pollinating wild and domestic plant species via wind,

insects, birds, or other animals

Nutrient Cycling Transfer of nutrients from one place to another;

transformation of critical nutrients and unusable to usable

forms

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Ecosystem Service Definition Economic

Value Assigned

Information

Aesthetic Value Enjoying and appreciating the scenery, sounds, and smells

of nature

Existence Value Well-being gained by the knowledge that an environmental

resource exists, even without on-site use of that resource

Cultural Value Providing opportunities for communities to use lands with

spiritual, religious and historic importance

Research and

Education

Using natural systems for education and scientific research X

Recreation/Tourism Experiencing the natural world and enjoying outdoor

activities

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

This page intentionally left blank

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

3. Methods for Valuing Ecosystem Services

While nature is priceless in one sense, it also generates tremendous economic value, which can be

measured using a variety of established methods. Furthermore, most planning and infrastructure

decisions are considered in economic terms, using tools such as BCA. When nature-based solutions

are not valued in these same terms, they are effectively given a default value of zero, putting them at

a big disadvantage compared with traditional, engineered approaches. With recent advances in the

economic literature, the economic value of nature-based solutions to communities, governments and

businesses can now be estimated in dollars, and the ecosystem services framework provides a

comprehensive approach for capturing these benefits.

Though ecosystem services provide real and quantifiable economic value, they are generally not

bought or sold on a market (i.e., they are non-market benefits), and therefore their value must be

estimated by means other than market prices. Over the past several decades, the fields of

environmental and natural resource economics have developed and refined several methods for

estimating the value of ecosystem services. These valuation methods fall into three broad

categories: (1) direct market valuation, (2) revealed preferences and (3) stated preference.

Table 2

describes the most common valuation techniques within each of these categories

Table 2: Ecosystem Service Valuation Methods

Method Description Example

Direct Market Valuation

Market Price Valuations are directly obtained from

the prices paid for the good or service

in markets

The price of wheat sold on open

markets

Replacement Cost

Cost of replacing the ecosystem

service with engineered systems

The cost of replacing a watershed’s

natural filtration capacity with a

water filtration plant

Avoided Cost Costs that are incurred when the

ecosystem service is lost

Wetlands absorb and retain water,

reducing flooding to downstream

infrastructure. Flooding increases

when the wetlands are lost or

degraded.

Production

Approaches

Value created from an ecosystem

service through increases to

dependent economic outputs

Better grazing land health may

increase stocking rates for

livestock

Revealed Preference Approaches

Travel Cost Costs incurred to consume or enjoy

ecosystem services reflects a

minimum implicit value of the service

Tourists who travel to visit a locale

must value that resource at least

as much as the cost of traveling

there.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Method Description Example

Hedonic Pricing Value implied by the additional price

consumers are willing to pay for the

service in related markets.

Property values near lakes and

parks tend to exceed similar

properties without such nearby

amenities.

Stated Preference Approaches

Contingent

Valuation

Value elicited by posing hypothetical,

valuation scenarios

What people are willing to pay to

protect an endangered species

The approaches described above are primary methods, meaning they rely on new data generated by

the authors of the study. There are also approaches to ecosystem service valuation that are

secondary methods, meaning they rely on values, data and/or models that already exist from

previously conducted primary studies. This approach is often referred to as benefit transfer or value

transfer, which can be broadly defined as the process of estimating the value of an ecosystem

service at the site of interest by using an existing valuation estimate(s) that has been developed at

another site. Benefit transfer is often used to estimate the value of ecosystem services, as it can

generate defensible estimates quickly and at a fraction of the cost of conducting local, primary

studies, which typically require much more time and funding.

The United Nations Environmental Program, in its Guidance Manual on Value Transfer Methods for

Ecosystem Services

defines three main types of value transfer (direct quote):

 Unit value transfer uses values for ecosystem services at a study site, expressed as a value per

unit, combined with information on the quantity of units at the policy site to estimate policy site

values. Unit values can be adjusted to reflect differences between the study and policy sites

(e.g., income and price levels).

 Value function transfer uses a value function estimated for an individual study site in conjunction

with information on policy site characteristics to calculate the unit value of an ecosystem service

at the policy site. A value function is an equation that relates the value of an ecosystem service

to the characteristics of the ecosystem and the beneficiaries of the ecosystem service.

 Meta-analytic function transfer (or simply “meta-analysis”) uses a value function estimated from

the results of multiple primary studies representing multiple study sites in conjunction with

information on policy site characteristics to calculate the unit value of an ecosystem service at

the policy site. Since the value function is estimated from the results of multiple studies it can

represent and control for greater variation in the characteristics of ecosystems, beneficiaries and

other contextual characteristics.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

4. Ecosystem Service Value Updates

4.1. Summary of Proposed Land Cover Categories and Ecosystem Service

Values

Table 3 summarizes the differences in the land cover categories, as well as total value by land cover

category, between the 2016 adopted ecosystem services and the values proposed in this update.

Table 3. Summary of Changes to Land Cover Categories and Ecosystem Service Values

2016 Adopted Values 2022 Proposed Values

Land Cover Category

Value

(2014

USD/acre/year) Land Cover Category

Value

(2021

USD/acre/year)

Forest

554

Forest

12,589

Green Open Space

8,308

Urban Green Open Space

15,541

Rural Green Open Space

10,632

Riparian

39,545

Riparian

37,199

Wetland

6,010

Coastal Wetland

8,955

Inland Wetland

8,171

Marine and Estuary

1,799

n/a*

n/a

Coral Reefs

7,120

n/a

Shellfish Reefs

2,757

n/a

Beaches and Dunes

300,649

*The Marine and Estuary category (and most of its associated values) was merged with the Coastal Wetland

Category

Conceptual Example Link to Detailed

Guidance

Riparian

Restoration of urban riparian areas to mitigate natural

hazards such as heat and pluvial flooding, while

generating other ecosystem services (e.g., aesthetic

value, air quality, recreation). Like the example above,

restoration of riparian areas is likely to occur as part of a

broader restoration effort, possibly adjacent to “wetland”

and “forest” areas as defined in this guidance.

Appendix F

Riparian Hazardous fuels reduction and other ecosystem health

improvement actions in an existing riparian area to

mitigate wildfire risk while generating additional

ecosystem services (e.g., erosion control, recreation).

Appendix F

Coral reefs Restoration, creation, enhancement or protection of coral

reefs to support coastal storm/flood risk reduction.

Appendix G

Beaches and

Dunes

Restoration, creation, enhancement or protection of

dunes for coastal storm/flood risk reduction.

Appendix H

Shellfish reefs Restoration, creation, enhancement or protection of

shellfish reefs for coastal storm/flood risk reduction.

Appendix I

5.5. “Real World” Examples

The following examples demonstrate in more detail how a subapplicant could incorporate the land

cover categories provided earlier, and how that would be reflected in the BCA, along with PUL

considerations. Not all possible hazards, project types or land cover categories have been included.

5.5.1. Example 1: Urban Floodplain Acquisition and Restoration Project

Project Description

The City of Resilience is a medium-sized city on the West Coast. The City submitted an HMGP

subapplication to FEMA, requesting $3 million in federal cost share to implement a flood risk

reduction project in a neighborhood that experienced frequent flooding.

The scope of work included acquisition of private properties from willing sellers and

demolition/relocation of structures that were on those parcels; restoration of riparian habitat areas

along the river; reconnection of the floodplain to the river, including removal of existing roads and

bridges to allow flood water to access the restored floodplain; and creation of an urban park with

ADA-accessible trails, a parking lot and other basic amenities (including installation of thousands of

native trees, shrubs and grasses).

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Benefits of the project include floodwater storage, reducing flood risk to downstream structures and

adjacent roads; habitat for fish and wildlife, including endangered salmon species; improved water

quality; and recreational opportunities.

Figure 3 provides a map of the project site before mitigation, while Figure 4 and Figure 5 provide a

map and satellite image of the project after mitigation, respectively.

Relevant Land Cover Categories

In total, the footprint of the project encompassed 65 acres, of which 15 acres met the definition of

“Riparian” and 50 acres met the definition of “Urban Green Open Space,” as well as relevant

Feasibility & Effectiveness considerations (Table 5 and Appendices D and F). Because the entire site

was restored and converted to a publicly accessible park, all 65 acres were counted in the BCA.

Project Useful Life Considerations

Following acquisition of the private parcels, the City recorded deed restrictions on the parcels,

consistent with the FEMA Model Deed Restriction, ensuring the property would be maintained in

perpetuity for uses that are compatible with open space. As a result, the City was able to use a

default value of 100 years for the PUL in the BCA.

Figures

Figure 3. Urban Floodplain Restoration – Before Mitigation

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Figure 4. Urban Floodplain Restoration – After Mitigation

Figure 5. Urban Floodplain Restoration – After Mitigation (satellite image)

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

5.5.2. Example 2: Rural Park and Floodplain Storage Project

Project Description

Springfield is a town of 2,500 people on the Front Range in Colorado. The Town submitted an HMGP

subapplication to FEMA, requesting $2 million in federal cost share for a mitigation project.

The scope of work included conversion of a former industrial site, which was already owned by the

Town (and leased out until recently), into a riverside park that could hold floodwaters during flood

events and included trails, bathrooms, and a kiosk; restoration of riparian habitat areas along the

river; and restoration and hazardous fuels reduction in a privately held forested area to the south

west of the park to reduce wildfire risk.

Benefits of the project include floodwater storage, reducing flood risk to downstream structures;

habitat for fish and wildlife; wildfire risk reduction; and recreational opportunities.

Figure 6 provides a map of the project site before mitigation, while Figure 7 and Figure 8 provide a

map and satellite image of the project after mitigation, respectively.

Relevant Land Cover Categories

In total, the footprint of the project encompassed 50 acres, of which 10 acres met the definition of

“Riparian,” 20 acres met the definition of “Rural Green Open Space,” and 20 acres met the

definition of “Forest” (Table 5). All final land cover categories also met relevant Feasibility &

Effectiveness considerations (Appendices A, D and F).

Project Useful Life Considerations

The Town already owned the areas of “Riparian” (10 acres) and “Rural Green Open Space” (20

acres), but opted to record deed restrictions on the parcels, consistent with the FEMA Model Deed

Restriction, to ensure the property would be maintained in perpetuity for uses that are compatible

with open space. As a result, the Town was able to use a PUL of 100 years for those 30 acres in the

BCA.

The 20 acres of “Forest” to the southwest of the park remained in private ownership. However, the

Town signed a contract with the landowner allowing the Town to enter the property and conduct

ongoing, hazardous fuels reduction activities on the land for 50 years into the future. The Town

therefore used a PUL of 50 years for those 20 acres in the BCA.

Figures

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Figure 6. Rural Floodplain Restoration – Before Mitigation

Figure 7. Rural Floodplain Restoration – After Mitigation

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Figure 8. Rural Floodplain Restoration – After Mitigation (satellite image)

5.5.3. Example 3: Coastal Wetland Restoration Project

Project Description

Beach Haven is a mid-sized city on the east coast of Florida. The City submitted an HMGP

subapplication to FEMA, requesting $4 million in federal cost share for a mitigation project.

The scope of work included restoration of 50 acres of coastal wetlands that had become degraded

by human impacts.

Benefits of the project include coastal flood risk reduction for residential structures, roads and

critical facilities; habitat for fish and wildlife; and water quality improvements for nearby beaches.

Figure 9 provides a map of the project site before mitigation, while Figure 10 and Figure 11 provide a

map and satellite image of the project after mitigation, respectively.

Relevant Land Cover Categories

In total, the footprint of the project encompassed 50 acres, all of which met the definition of “Coastal

Wetland” (Table 5) and the relevant Feasibility & Effectiveness considerations (Appendix B). All 50

acres were therefore included in the BCA.

To the west of the project, there were approximately 40 acres of existing Coastal Wetland and 30

acres of existing Inland Wetland—all healthy and not requiring any restoration. To the east of the

project was open water (not a FEMA land cover category) and 100 acres of seagrass beds (captured

as “Coastal Wetland” under FEMA’s definition). Since the footprint of the project did not include any

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

of these areas, and there was no change in the After Mitigation compared with Before Mitigation,

they were not included in the BCA.

Project Useful Life Considerations

The City intended to monitor and maintain the wetlands in perpetuity; however, it could not provide

documentation to show this, and therefore opted to use the standard PUL of 30 years in the BCA.

Figures

Figure 9. Coastal Wetland Restoration Project – Before Mitigation

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Figure 10. Coastal Wetland Restoration Project – After Mitigation

Figure 11. Coastal Wetland Restoration Project – After Mitigation (satellite image)

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Appendix A. Forest

Land Cover Definition

Forest is defined as:

Areas dominated by trees (evergreen and/or deciduous) generally greater than 5 meters tall that –

on average – comprise greater than 20% of the total vegetation cover within the area or unit of

analysis (e.g., pixel, polygon, parcel).

This definition of forest is based on the 2019 National Land Cover Database (NLCD), a product that

is developed and regularly updated by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium,

a “group of federal agencies who coordinate and generate consistent and relevant land cover

information at the national scale for a wide variety of environmental, land management, and

modeling applications.”

The NLCD, in turn, has been modified from the Anderson Land Cover

Classification System.

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria

In general, to include the ecosystem service values for forest in a FEMA BCA, the project should meet

the following criteria:

 The final land cover associated with the mitigation project should be consistent with the

definition of “forest” (provided above).

 The project must demonstrate some level of ecosystem restoration. The Society for Ecological

Restoration (SER) International defines ecosystem (ecological) restoration as “the process of

assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.”

This

definition has also been adopted by the U.S. Forest Service Restoration Framework Team.

 According to the EPA,

vii

the concept of restoration can also include restoration-related activities

such as “creation” and “enhancement” of ecosystems.

 In the context of a FEMA BCA, ecosystem service values can be realized through an increase in

the health or functionality of an ecosystem in the “After Mitigation” scenario relative to the

“Before Mitigation” (No Action) scenario. Therefore, ecosystem service values could be

generated through restoration, creation, enhancement or protection (of areas at risk of

degradation in a No Action scenario).

In other words, areas with a tree-crown areal density of greater than 20%.

vii

Discussed in the context of wetland restoration but broadly applicable to other ecosystem types. See the following link for

more information: https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-restoration-definitions-and-distinctions

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

 In general, forest restoration, creation, enhancement or protection should follow internally or

externally established principles, guidelines, policies and techniques.

 According to the SER International document referenced above,

plans for restoration projects

include, at a minimum, the following:

o Clear rationale as to why restoration is needed

o Ecological description of the site designated for restoration

o Statement of the goals and objectives of the restoration project

o Designation and description of the reference

o Explanation of how the proposed restoration will integrate with the landscape and its flows of

organisms and materials

o Explicit plans, schedules and budgets for site preparation, installation and post-installation

activities, including a strategy for making prompt mid-course corrections

o Well-developed and explicitly stated performance standards, with monitoring protocols by

which the project can be evaluated

o Strategies for long-term protection and maintenance of the restored ecosystem

Mitigation Project Use Cases

The following examples demonstrate how the “forest” land cover category might be used in a

mitigation project (and associated BCA):

 Restoration, creation, enhancement or protection of a forested area as a component of a Flood

Diversion and Storage (FDS) or Floodplain and Stream Restoration (FSR) project to increase flood

storage capacity on the land/floodplain, reduce runoff and decrease flood risk to downstream,

upstream or adjacent people and structures. This example would apply to forested areas within

an FDS or FSR project that are not defined as “riparian.”

 Hazardous fuels reduction and other ecosystem health improvement actions in an existing

forested area to mitigate wildfire risk while generating additional ecosystem services (e.g.,

erosion control, recreation).

 Reforestation of urban areas (e.g., as a component of an Acquisition and Relocation/Demolition

project or other eligible mitigation project) to mitigate natural hazards such as heat and pluvial

flooding, while generating other ecosystem services (e.g., aesthetic value, air quality, recreation).

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Project Useful Life Considerations

In general, provided that forested areas associated with the project meet the above definition and

Feasibility & Effectiveness criteria, a standard PUL of 50 years can be applied. A higher PUL may be

applied in the following cases:

 If the forested area is owned or acquired, and a FEMA-compliant deed restriction (CFR, Title 44,

Part 80) or equivalent perpetual easement is recorded on the property, then a PUL of 100 years

can be used. A typical example would be a standard FEMA Acquisition and

Relocation/Demolition project that results in the restoration, creation, enhancement or

protection of the forested area.

 If the land is not owned, acquired or controlled, but the subapplicant can demonstrate that the

land cover will be maintained/protected beyond 50 years (as evidenced through documented

assurances, such as deed restriction, easement or maintenance agreement with the landowner),

then a PUL of 51–100 years can be used (with 100 years representing perpetuity), depending

upon the nature of the assurances.

Please see the section in the main report body titled “Select an Appropriate Project Useful Life” for

more background and detail.

Summary of Value Updates

Ecosystem Service 2016 Policy This Update

Value (2014

USD/acre/year)

Source

Studies

Included

(#)

Value (2021

USD/acre/year)

Source

Studies

Added (#)

Source Studies

Removed (#)

Aesthetic Value — 0 1,477 3

Air Quality — 0 711 3

Biological Control

Climate Regulation 153 5 199 1 2

Erosion Control — 0 1,672 1

Existence Value — 0 7,531 1

Flood Hazard Risk

Reduction

321 4 368 0 0

Food Provisioning

Habitat

Pollination

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Ecosystem Service 2016 Policy This Update

Value (2014

USD/acre/year)

Source

Studies

Included

(#)

Value (2021

USD/acre/year)

Source

Studies

Added (#)

Source Studies

Removed (#)

Recreation/Tourism — 0 94 1

Water Filtration — 0 435 1

Water Supply 80 1 103 1 0

Total Estimated

Benefits

554

12,589

Ecosystem Service Values

Aesthetic Value

Summary

Land Cover: Forest

Ecosystem Service: Aesthetic Value

FEMA Value: $1,477/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Revealed Preference, Hedonic Pricing

Geographic Area of Studies: Western and Central United States

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Kousky, C., Walls, M. 2013. Floodplain Conservation as a Flood Mitigation

Strategy: Estimating Costs and Benefits. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

Reference 2: McPherson, G., Simpson, J.R., Peper, P.J., Maco, S.E., Xiao, Q. 2005. “Municipal

forest benefits and costs in five U.S. cities.” Journal of Forestry 103(8): 411–416.

Methodology Description: Kousky & Walls (2013) estimated multiple benefits of floodplain

conservation based on a case study of the Meramac River greenway in St. Louis County, Missouri.

Aesthetic benefits were estimated through a hedonic model analyzing property values based on the

proximity to the greenway. Total values are estimated in 2012 USD/year, which we divided by the

total acres of the Meramac greenway and then converted to 2021 USD/acre/year listed in the table

below. McPherson et al. (2005) estimated multiple benefits of street and park trees in five U.S.

cities.

Aesthetic benefits were estimated based on a previous hedonic price study which was

applied through a biophysical model to tree and home distribution data for each city. Values are

estimated as a single citywide 2005 USD net present value per city. We adjusted these values by

dividing by total acres of citywide street and park trees and then divided that resulting value by the

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

average years of home ownership (13) to arrive at a final 2005 USD/acre/year value. We then

converted this to 2021 USD/acre/year values listed in the table below. Values were only taken from

three of the five cities, as information on canopy cover was not readily available for two of the cities.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location Value

($/acre/year)*

Kousky & Walls (2013) St. Louis County, MO 1,004

McPherson et al. (2005) Fort Collins, CO 4,177

McPherson et al. (2005) Cheyenne, WY 197

McPherson et al. (2005) Berkeley, CA 530

Average

1,477

*All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: The aesthetic value benefits of these studies are estimated in multiple cities throughout

the U.S. They cover cities of differing demographic and economic contexts influencing values

attributed to property sale prices. The values are all derived for more urban areas and thus may have

limited applicability to a rural context.

Air Quality

Summary

Land Cover: Forest

Ecosystem Service: Air Quality

FEMA Value: $711/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Method: Avoided Cost

Geographic Area of Studies: United States

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A., Greenfield, E. 2014. “Tree and forest

effects on air quality and human health in the United States.” Environmental Pollution 193:

119–129.

Reference 2: Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A., Hoehn, R. 2013. “Modeled PM

2.5

removal by trees in ten U.S. cities and associated health effects.” Environmental Pollution

178: 395–402.

Reference 3: Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., Stevens, J.C. 2006. “Air pollution removal by urban

trees and shrubs in the United States.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4(3-4): 115–123.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Methodology Description: Nowak et al. (2013) estimated the total average effects of forests on

improving air quality (specifically fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns) in 10 cities across

the U.S.

This benefit is valued based on the avoided costs of human mortality and morbidity

resulting from improved air quality. Values were estimated in 2010 USD/square meters/year of tree

cover, which we converted to 2021 USD/acre/year. These converted values can be found in the

table below. Nowak et al. (2006) estimated the total average effects of forests on improving air

quality via removal of five different pollutants: O

, PM

, NO

, SO

, and CO in 55 cities across the

U.S.

The change in pollutant levels is valued using monetized externality values, which represent

the estimated cost of pollution to society. Values were estimated in 1994 USD/square meters/year

of tree cover, which we converted to 2021 USD/acre/year listed in the table below. The average of

all converted values can also be found in the table below. Nowak et al. (2014) estimated urban and

rural forest effects on air pollution removal (NO

, O

, PM

2.5

, SO

) across the conterminous U.S.

This

benefit is valued based on the avoided costs of human mortality and morbidity resulting from

improved air quality. An average value in 2010 USD/hectare/year for the coterminous U.S. was

used, which we converted to 2021 USD/acre/year listed in the table below. In Nowak et al. (2013)

and (2014), dollar values for pollution reduction were produced by EPA and based on the agency’s

primary air quality standards.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location Value

($/acre/year)*

Nowak et al. (2014) Conterminous U.S. 13

Nowak et al. (2013) Atlanta, GA 250

Nowak et al. (2013) Baltimore, MD 651

Nowak et al. (2013) Boston, MA 1,152

Nowak et al. (2013) Chicago, IL 1,202

Nowak et al. (2013) Los Angeles, CA 451

Nowak et al. (2013) Minneapolis, MN 250

Nowak et al. (2013) New York, NY 1,903

Nowak et al. (2013) Philadelphia, PA 701

Nowak et al. (2013) San Francisco, CA 1,252

Nowak et al. (2013) Syracuse, NY 301

Nowak et al. (2006) 55 U.S. cities 399

Average

711

*All values are presented in 2021 USD

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Discussion: The benefits of improved air quality from these studies are estimated in multiple

contexts throughout the U.S. They cover cities at many different scales and population densities, as

well as rural areas.

Climate Regulation

Summary

Land Cover: Forest

Ecosystem Service: Climate Regulation

FEMA Value: $199/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Method: Avoided Cost

Geographic Area of Studies: National

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. 2021.

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim

Estimates under Executive Order 13990.

Reference 2: Hoover, C.M., Bagdon, B., Gagnon, A. 2021. Standard Estimates of Forest

Ecosystem Carbon for Forest Types of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Madison, WI. Available online at:

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs202.pdf

Reference 3: Goulden, M.L., Munger, J.W., Fan, S.M., Daube, B.C., Wofsy, S.C. 1996.

“Exchange of carbon dioxide by a deciduous forest: response to interannual climate

variability.” Science 271(5255): 1576–1578.

Reference 4: Hamilton, J.G., DeLucia, E.H., George, K., Naidu, S.L., Finzi, A.C., Schlesinger,

W.H. 2002. “Forest carbon balance under elevated CO

.” Oecologia 131: 250–260.

Reference 5: Black, T.A., Chen, W.J., Barr, A.G., Arain, M.A., Chen, Z., Nesic, Z., Hogg, E.H.,

Neumann, H.H., Yang, P.C. 2000. “Increased carbon sequestration by a boreal deciduous

forest in years with a warm spring.” Geophysical research letters 27(9):

1271–1274.

Methodology Description: Carbon sequestration of forests was calculated in two parts. First, a

database of over 6,000 carbon values

viii

was used to estimate the carbon sequestration in metric

tons of carbon per acre per year of forest types across the U.S. Four studies comprising 717

individual carbon sequestration values were selected from the database to construct an average

value estimate. Second, the social cost of carbon was used to calculate a dollar value of carbon

sequestration. The social cost of carbon (SCC) represents the average societal costs associated with

viii

Internal Earth Economics database

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

each additional ton of carbon emissions (measured in CO

), such as losses to agriculture, impacts

to human health and increased disaster risk. In the context of actions that reduce carbon emissions

(e.g., energy efficiency) or actively sequester carbon (e.g., forest restoration), the SCC represents the

value of these actions in terms of avoided cost to society and is used by federal agencies in the U.S.

and updated on a regular basis by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse

Gases (IWGSCGG). The value for carbon sequestration used was derived from the IWGSCGG—a result

of Executive Order 13990.

Specifically, the 2020 value was used: $51/metric ton CO

e, or

$195.81/metric ton C in 2021 USD.

Calculation:

Source Study Average C Sequestration

Rate (metric tons

C/acre/year)

Social Cost of

Carbon

($/metric ton C)

Value

($/acre/year)

Hoover et al. (2021)

0.74 195.81 145

Goulden et al. (1996)

0.85 195.81 166

Hamilton et al. (2002)

1.76 195.81 344

Black et al. (2000)

0.71 195.81 139

Average

199

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: The above assessment combined 717 carbon values estimated across the U.S. to arrive

at a single dollar value for the value of climate regulation provided by forests. The values are

averaged across different stages of ecological health, species, stand age, and climate types of newly

established. The carbon value used was standardized by the latest data produced by the Interagency

Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, a group appointed by the White House. Two

studies were removed from the value sets that FEMA adopted for the 2016 environmental benefits

policy. Smith et al. (2006)

was replaced by Hoover et al. (2012), which represents an update of the

older report produced by the Forest Service. Heath et al. (2003)

was removed as it only

represented carbon sequestration in soils and undercounted the benefit, unlike the other studies

included, which included rates for the whole ecosystem (i.e., both above and below ground carbon).

Erosion Control

Summary

Land Cover: Forest

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO

e) represents the number of metric tons of CO

emissions with the same global warming

potential as one metric ton of another greenhouse gas.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Ecosystem Service: Erosion Control

FEMA Value: $1,672/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Meta-Analysis

Geographic Area of Study: Global

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Taye, F.A., Folkersen, M.V., Fleming, C.M., Buckwell, A., Mackey, B., Diwakar,

K.C., Le, D., Hasan, S., Ange, C.S. 2021. “The economic values of global forest ecosystem

services: A meta-analysis.” Ecological Economics 189 (107145): 1–14.

Methodology Description: Taye et al. (2021) estimated a meta-analysis of the economic value of

ecosystem services for forest ecosystem services.

The study included a dataset of 261 primary

studies published around the world, covering 624 values. The meta-regression reports were reported

in 2017 USD/hectare/year, which we converted to 2021 USD/acre/year. The estimate used for this

value was the global mean for the “mass flow regulation” ecosystem service from Table 3 in the

study.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location Value

($/acre/year)*

Taye et al. (2014) Global 1,672

Average

1,672

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: Meta-analyses produce value estimates from the results of typically dozens or hundreds

of studies at once, controlling for wide variations in ecosystem characteristics, human preferences,

and methodological aspects of valuation studies. They are increasingly used to synthesize

environmental literature and are a powerful tool that can produce customized value estimates where

domestic valuation literature is scarce.

Existence Value

Summary

Land Cover: Forest

Ecosystem Service: Existence Value

FEMA Value: $7,531/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Replacement Cost; Meta-Analysis

Geographic Area of Studies: U.S. Cities and Global

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., Dwyer, J.F. 2002. “Compensatory value of urban trees

in the United States.” Journal of Arboriculture 28(40): 194–199.

Methodology Description: Nowak et al. (2002) estimated the existence value of trees based on their

replacement costs in eight cities.

The study assessed trees as structural assets and used valuation

methods of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers with field data from the cities to determine

compensatory values for tree populations. Values are estimated in 2001 USD/square meter/life

span of a tree, which we regularized to dollars per acre and then divided by the average life span of a

tree. These results were then converted to 2021 USD/acre/year values, as listed in the table below.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location Value

($/acre/year)*

Nowak et al. (2002) Oakland, CA 5,868

Nowak et al. (2002) Jersey City, NJ 4,952

Nowak et al. (2002) Syracuse, NY 7,139

Nowak et al. (2002) Baltimore, MD 13,731

Nowak et al. (2002) Philadelphia, PA 7,038

Nowak et al. (2002) Atlanta, GA 6,374

Nowak et al. (2002) Boston, MA 8,466

Nowak et al. (2002) New York, NY 6,680

Average

7,531

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: The studies above represent values from cities across the U.S. to estimate this value.

Recreation/Tourism

Summary

Land Cover: Forest

Ecosystem Service: Recreation/Tourism

FEMA Value: $94/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Method: Travel Cost

Geographic Area of Studies: United States

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Rosenberger, R.S., White, E.M., Kline, J.D., Cvitanovich, C. 2017. Recreation

economic values for estimating outdoor recreation economic benefits from the National

Forest System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, Portland, OR. Available online at:

https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr957.pdf

Reference 2: U.S. Forest Service. 2020. National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results:

National Summary Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington DC.

Available online at:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2020-National-Visitor-Use-

Monitoring-Summary-Report.pdf

Methodology Description: Rosenberger et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis of travel cost studies

measuring the consumer surplus value of recreation throughout the U.S. in dollars per trip.

used the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Survey to find the total

number of recreational trips taken to National Forest lands in the U.S. annually, as well as the

average length of each trip in days.

Total annual trips was multiplied by days per trip and the dollar

per trip consumer surplus value, then divided by the total acreage of USFS lands to produce a dollar-

per-acre value.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location Value

($/acre/year)*

Rosenberger et al. (2017)

& USFS (2020

United States 94

Average

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: While this value estimate is specific to National Forests, the data represents forests from

a variety of contexts throughout the country and a variety of recreational activities that are tracked by

the USFS. It also incorporates standard values, methods, and data collected by other Federal

Agencies.

Flood Hazard Risk Reduction

Summary

Land Cover: Forest

Ecosystem Service: Flood Hazard Risk Reduction

FEMA Value: $368/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Avoided Cost, Alternative Cost

Geographic Area of Studies: Northern California, Southern California, Arizona, Southern Ontario,

Canada

Source Studies:

Reference 1: McPherson, G.E., Simpson, J.R., Peper, P.J., Xiao, Q. 1999. “Benefit-Cost

Analysis of Modesto’s Municipal Urban Forest.” Journal of Arboriculture 25: 235–248.

Reference 2: McPherson, G.E., Simpson, J.R. 2002. “A Comparison of Municipal Forest

Benefits and Costs in Modesto and Santa Monica, California, USA.” Urban Forestry 1: 61–74.

Reference 3: McPherson, G.E. 1992. “Accounting for benefits and costs of urban green

space.” Landscape and Urban Planning 22: 41–51.

Reference 4: Wilson, S.J. 2008. Ontario’s wealth: Canada’s future: Appreciating the value of

the Greenbelt’s eco-services. David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver, BC.

Methodology Description: McPherson et al. (1999) assessed Modesto, California’s citywide

stormwater flood mitigation benefits from trees in parks and along street public rights-of-way.

Values are estimated citywide in 1998 USD/year, which we regularized by dividing by the total

acreage of street and park tree cover and then converted to 2021 USD/acre/year values, as listed in

the table below. McPherson and Simpson (2002) estimated the stormwater flood mitigation benefits

of urban trees in two cities in California.

Values are estimated citywide in 2001 USD/year, which

we regularized by dividing by citywide public tree cover acreage and then converted to 2021

USD/acre/year values, as listed in the table below. McPherson (1992) conducted a similar

assessment in a smaller-scale case study, calculating the stormwater mitigation benefits of small

forests in an urban context.

Values are estimated in 1991 USD/tree/year, which we regularized by

multiplying by the number of citywide trees and then divided by the acres of citywide tree cover. We

converted the resulting value into 2021 USD/acre/year, as listed in the table below. Wilson (2008)

used CITYgreen software to estimate the flood hazard reduction benefits of forests at a landscape

scale in terms of the alternative cost of built infrastructure that provides the same level of service.

The value is estimated in 2005 Canadian dollars/hectare/year, which we converted to 2021

USD/acre/year value and listed in the table below.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location Value

($/acre/year)*

McPherson et al. (1999) Modesto, CA 832

McPherson et al. (1999) Modesto, CA 146

McPherson & Simpson

(2002)

Modesto, CA 103

McPherson & Simpson

(2002)

Santa Monica, CA 442

McPherson (1992) Tucson, AZ 10

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Source Study Study Location Value

($/acre/year)*

Wilson (2008) Ontario, Canada 676

Average

368

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: The flood hazard risk reduction benefits of forests estimated by these studies are from

various urban areas in the U.S. and Canada. The values are all derived from urban areas and thus

may have limited applicability in certain rural contexts. The studies included in the construction of

this value have not been modified from the values adopted in FEMA’s 2016 environmental benefits

policy other than to update them for inflation.

Water Filtration

Summary

Land Cover: Forest

Ecosystem Service: Water Filtration

FEMA Value: $435/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Method: Meta-Analysis

Geographic Area of Study: Global

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Taye, F.A., Folkersen, M.V., Fleming, C.M., Buckwell, A., Mackey, B., Diwakar,

K.C., Le, D., Hasan, S., Ange, C.S. 2021. “The economic values of global forest ecosystem

services: A meta-analysis.” Ecological Economics 189 (107145): 1–14.

Methodology Description: Taye et al. (2021) estimated a meta-analysis of the economic value of

ecosystem services for forest ecosystem services.

The study included a dataset of 261 primary

studies published around the world, covering 624 values. The meta-regression reports were reported

in 2017 USD/hectare/year, which we converted to 2021 USD/acre/year. The estimate used for this

value is the global mean for the “bioremediation” and “dilution, filtration, and sequestration”

ecosystem services from Table 3 in the study, which represented two ways that forests help to

provide clean water.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location Type of Water

Filtration

Value

($/acre/year)*

Taye et al. (2021) Global Bioremediation 648

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Source Study Study Location Type of Water

Filtration

Value

($/acre/year)*

Taye et al. (2021) Global Dilution, filtration,

and sequestration

222

Average

435

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: Meta-analyses produce value estimates from the results of typically dozens or hundreds

of studies at once, controlling for wide variations in ecosystem characteristics, human preferences

and methodological aspects of valuation studies. They are increasingly used to synthesize

environmental literature and are a powerful tool that can produce customized value estimates where

domestic valuation literature is scarce.

Water Supply

Summary

Land Cover: Forest

Ecosystem Service: Water Supply

FEMA Value: $103/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Method: Avoided Cost, Meta-Analysis

Geographic Area of Study: National

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Hill, B.H., Kolka, R.K., McCormick, F.H., Starry, M.A. 2013. “A synoptic survey of

ecosystem services from headwater catchments in the United States.” Ecosystem Services 7:

106–115.

Reference 2: Taye, F.A., Folkersen, M.V., Fleming, C.M., Buckwell, A., Mackey, B., Diwakar,

K.C., Le, D., et al. 2021. “The economic values of global forest ecosystem services: A meta-

analysis.” Ecological Economics 189 (107145): 1–14.

Methodology Description: Hill et al. (2013) calculated the water supply of 568 upland headwaters

catchments in first- and second-order streams throughout the U.S.

The sampling design was

spatially balanced and employed an unequal probability survey with an unequal selection biased on

stream order. Hydrological features were collected from stream gauge data. Water supply was

calculated as a function of mean annual precipitation (1981–2010), mean annual discharge,

reported water runoff and evapotranspiration, all spatially explicit and derived using geographic

information system and other spatial interpolation models. The value of water supply was based on

an average cost of alternative water sources, including groundwater extraction, desalinization and

surface water collection and treatment. The economic outputs were reported as averages across

nine U.S. ecoregions. Taye et al. (2021) estimated a meta-analysis of the economic value of

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

ecosystem services for forest ecosystem services.

The study included a dataset of 261 primary

studies published around the world, covering 624 values. The meta-regression reports were reported

in 2017 USD/hectare/year, which we converted to 2021 USD/acre/year. The estimate used for this

value was the global mean for the “water supply” ecosystem service.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location (ecoregion)

Value

($/acre/year)*

Hill et al. (2013) Northern Appalachian Mountain Catchments 186

Hill et al. (2013) Southern Appalachian Mountain Catchments 138

Hill et al. (2013) Coastal Plains Catchments 122

Hill et al. (2013) Xeric Catchments 42

Hill et al. (2013) Western Mountain Catchments 165

Hill et al. (2013) Northern Plains Catchments 18

Hill et al. (2013) Southern Plains Catchments 19

Hill et al. (2013) Temperate Plains Catchments 63

Hill et al. (2013) Upper Midwest Catchments 74

Taye et al. (2021) Global 114

Average

103

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: Hill et al. conclude that the values do not represent an exhaustive sampling of forests in

the U.S., particularly in lowland areas. However, this survey of forest catchments likely provides the

best available national study for the U.S. Given that water storage capacity of upland forests often

supplies downstream water users, these values apply to most cases in the U.S. The authors

recognize these are conservative estimates and acknowledge that values can vary widely. Low-end

values ensure that at least a value greater than zero is given to the value of water supply provided by

forests. The addition of the meta-regression results support those produced by Hill et al., since it

covers a wide range of contexts around the world.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

This page intentionally left blank.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Appendix B. Coastal Wetland

Land Cover Definition

Coastal wetland

is defined as:

Areas of tidal wetlands (herbaceous and/or woody vegetation) or deepwater habitats in which plants

grow and form a continuous cover principally on or at the surface of the water (e.g., algal mats, kelp

beds, and submerged aquatic vegetation); AND vegetation coverage is greater than 20%; AND these

waters are tidally influenced and have a salinity greater than or equal to 0.5 parts per thousand.

This definition of coastal wetland is a combination of several categories within the Coastal Change

Analysis Program (C-CAP) Regional Land Cover Classification Scheme for Estuarine Wetlands

developed by NOAA,

which is a nationally standardized inventory of land cover for the coastal areas

of the U.S. Specifically, the following categories have been captured: Estuarine Forested Wetland

(16); Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland (17); Estuarine Emergent Wetland (18); and Estuarine Aquatic

Bed (23).

Subapplicants can use the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper

to determine whether

the wetlands in their proposed project are likely to meet the definition of “coastal,” based on the

project’s location. To do this, subapplicants should use the map to zoom to their project’s location

and compare the location with nearby comparable wetlands that already exist. If those wetlands are

designated as “Estuarine and Marine Wetland” according to the Wetland Mapper legend, then their

project’s wetlands are likely to be “Coastal”; if they are designated as “Freshwater Emergent

Wetland” or “Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland” then their project’s wetlands are likely to be

considered “Inland” and subapplicants should refer to the section in this document for “inland

wetland.” If the Wetlands Mapper cannot be used to make this determination, subapplicants should

seek an expert’s opinion on the likely classification of their wetlands (i.e., coastal or inland), based

on the definition provided above.

Feasibility & Effectiveness Criteria

In general, to include the ecosystem service values for coastal wetland in a FEMA BCA, the project

should meet the following criteria:

 The final land cover associated with the mitigation project should be consistent with the

definition of “coastal wetland” above.

As noted in the introductory section of this report, a number of the source studies and values associated with the former

“Marine and Estuary” land cover category have now been incorporated into the Coastal Wetlands category. The land cover

definitions have also been partially combined.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

 The project must demonstrate some level of ecosystem restoration. The Society for Ecological

Restoration (SER) International defines ecosystem (ecological) restoration as “the process of

assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.”

This

definition has also been adopted by the Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration, a team

comprised by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental

Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the

Natural Resources Conservation Service.

 According to the EPA,

the concept of restoration can also include restoration-related activities

such as “creation” and “enhancement” of ecosystems.

 In the context of a FEMA BCA, ecosystem service values can be realized through an increase in

the health or functionality of an ecosystem in the “After Mitigation” scenario relative to the

“Before Mitigation” (No Action) scenario. Therefore, ecosystem service values could be

generated through restoration, creation, enhancement or protection (of areas at risk of

degradation in a No Action scenario).

 In general, wetland restoration should follow internally or externally established principles,

guidelines, policies and techniques. Examples include:

o One example of a guidance document is the International Guidelines on Natural and Nature-

Based Features for Flood Risk Management,

which was published in September 2021 by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Engineering With Nature® (EWN) Initiative, in collaboration

with government agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The document

includes detailed guidance on the use of wetlands and other features for flood risk

management.

o The SER International document, referenced above,

states that plans for restoration

projects include, at a minimum, the following:

‒ Clear rationale as to why restoration is needed

‒ Ecological description of the site designated for restoration

‒ Statement of the goals and objectives of the restoration project

‒ Designation and description of the reference

‒ Explanation of how the proposed restoration will integrate with the landscape and its

flows of organisms and materials

Discussed in the context of wetland restoration but broadly applicable to other ecosystem types. See the following link for

more information: https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-restoration-definitions-and-distinctions

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

‒ Explicit plans, schedules and budgets for site preparation, installation and post-

installation activities, including a strategy for making prompt mid-course corrections

‒ Well-developed and explicitly stated performance standards, with monitoring protocols by

which the project can be evaluated

‒ Strategies for long-term protection and maintenance of the restored ecosystem

Mitigation Project Use Cases

The following examples demonstrate how the “coastal wetland” land cover category might be used in

a mitigation project (and associated BCA):

 Restoration, creation, enhancement or protection of coastal wetland as part of a mitigation

project to support coastal storm risk reduction and/or coastal flooding to people and structures.

Examples:

o Virginia Point Wetland Protection Project (Galveston County, TX).

This project restored

roughly 10,000 feet of the Virginia Point shoreline and 25 acres of marsh in Galveston Bay.

The marsh will act as an additional line of storm defense behind the existing levee,

protecting urban areas, Galveston Causeway and the Bayport Industrial Wastewater

Treatment Facility. Other benefits of the project include coastal erosion control, aesthetic

value and habitat for fish and wildlife.

o Cameron Meadows Marsh Creation and Terracing project (Cameron Parish, LA).

This $32

million project will include creation of 308 acres of additional marsh along the Louisiana

coastline, helping to provide hurricane protection for populated areas including Calcasieu

Parish. Other benefits of the project include reduced saltwater intrusion along the coast.

o The Sears Point Wetland Restoration (Sonoma County, CA). The Sonoma Land Trust

purchased a 2,327-acre property in the northern edge of San Pablo Bay with the goal of

restoring tidal marsh. The project allowed tidal flow to return to approximately 1,000 acres of

the property. Round marsh mounds were also built to attenuate wind wave energy and the

flow of water, allowing sediment accretion and helping to naturally build up the marsh

elevation. Benefits of the project include flood risk reduction, habitat for wildlife and

recreational opportunities.

Project Useful Life Considerations

In general, provided that coastal wetland areas associated with the project meet the above definition

and Feasibility & Effectiveness criteria, a standard Project Useful Life of 50 years can be applied.

If the subapplicant can demonstrate that the coastal wetland will continue to be maintained/

protected beyond 50 years, as evidenced through documented assurances such as agency

commitments or formation of protected areas, then a PUL of 51–100 years can be applied (with 100

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

years representing perpetuity), depending on the nature of the assurances. Also, the coastal wetland

should ideally be owned or controlled by a government or non-profit organization.

Please see the section in the main report body titled “Select an Appropriate Project Useful Life” for

more background and detail.

Summary of Value Updates

xii

Ecosystem Service 2016 Policy This Update

Value (2014

USD/acre/year)

Source

Studies

Included

(#)

Value (2021

USD/acre/year)

Source

Studies

Added (#)

Source Studies

Removed (#)

Aesthetic Value 3,640 2 1,648 1 2

Air Quality

Biological Control

Climate Regulation 136 4 125 4 1

Erosion Control

Existence Value

Flood and Storm

Hazard Risk

Reduction

0 1,035 5 0

Food Provisioning

Habitat - 0 2,420 6 0

Nutrient Cycling 536 1 - 0 1

Pollination

Recreation/Tourism - 0 1,624 6 0

Water Filtration 1,406 2 1,558 2 0

Water Supply 292 2 544 2 0

Total Estimated

Benefits

6,010

8,955

xii

The land cover category “wetlands” in the 2016 policy was broken into “coastal wetland” and “inland wetland” for this

proposed update. The values provided in the “2016 Policy” column represent those associated with the original “wetland”

land cover category.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Ecosystem Service Values

Aesthetic Value

Summary

Land Cover: Coastal Wetland

Ecosystem Service: Aesthetic Value

FEMA Value: $1,648/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Meta-Analysis

Geographic Area of Studies: Global

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Ghermandi, A., van den Bergh, J.C., Brander, L.M., De Groot, H.L., Nunes, P.A.

2010. “Values of natural and human‐made wetlands: A meta‐analysis.” Water Resources

Research 46(12): W12516.

Methodology Description: Ghermandi et al. (2010) created a meta-analysis describing the value of

wetlands from 170 studies around the world.

We performed a function transfer—a type of benefit

transfer method—to construct a United States–specific value from the global model. We used the

reduced model estimated in the study, which had 416 observations and an adjusted R^2 of 0.44.

Model variables were set as follows: 1) Non-coastal wetland variables were set to 0, and estuarine

and the marine wetland variables were averaged; 2) The “amenity and aesthetics” variable was set

to 1, all other ecosystem service variables were set to 0; 3) GDP per capita was calculated by

converting the current U.S. GDP per capita

to the units specified by the model; 4) Wetland size was

set to the average size of coastal wetlands in the U.S.

5) All other methodological variables were

set to their mean value. The dependent variable was reported as 2003 USD per hectare per year,

which we converted to 2021 USD per acre per year.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location

(ecoregion)

Value

($/acre/year)*

Ghermandi et al. (2010) Global 1,648

Average

1,648

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: Meta-analyses produce value estimates from the results of typically dozens or hundreds

of studies at once, controlling for wide variations in ecosystem characteristics, human preferences

and methodological aspects of valuation studies. They are increasingly used to synthesize

environmental literature and are a powerful tool that can produce customized value estimates where

domestic valuation literature is scarce. We removed the two relevant coastal wetlands studies used

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

in the 2016 policy and propose replacing them with this customized meta-analysis. This is justified

as the two studies removed—Johnston et al. (2001)

and Johnston et al. (2002)

—are very local in

scale and the study site is in an affluent area which would have inflated the value of this service.

Climate Regulation

Summary

Land Cover: Coastal Wetland

Ecosystem Service: Climate Regulation

FEMA Value: $125/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Avoided Cost

Geographic Area of Studies: Global, North America, USA Coastal Areas; Florida; Snohomish County,

WA; Port Susan, WA

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Bridgeham, S.D., Megonigal, J.P., Keller, J.K., Bliss, N.B., Trettin, C. 2006. “The

carbon balance of North American wetlands.” Wetlands 26(4): 889–916.

Reference 2: Chmura, C., Anisfeld, S.C., Cahoon, D.R., Lynch, J.C. 2003. “Global carbon

sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils.” Global biogeochemical cycles 17(4).

Reference 3: Choi, Y., Wang, Y. 2004. “Dynamics of carbon sequestration in a coastal

wetland using radiocarbon measurements.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 1–12.

Reference 4: Crooks, S., Rybczyk, J., O'Connell, K., Devier, D.L., Poppe, K., Emmett-Mattox, S.

2014. Coastal blue carbon opportunity assessment for the Snohomish Estuary: The Climate

Benefits of Estuary Restoration. Report by Environmental Science Associates, Western

Washington University, EarthCorps, and Restore America’s Estuaries, Seattle, WA. Available

online at:

https://estuaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Crooks.-Coastal-Blue-Carbon-

Opportunity-Assessment-for-the-Snohomish-Estuary-ilovepdf-compressed.pdf

Reference 5: Duarte, C.M., Middelburg, J.J., Caraco, N. 2005. “Major role of marine

vegetation on the oceanic carbon cycle.” Biogeosciences 2: 1–8.

Reference 6: Laffoley, D., Grimsditch, G. (eds). 2009. The management of natural coastal

carbon sinks. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 53 pp.

Reference 7: Poppe, K., Rybczyk, J. 2019. A blue carbon assessment for the Stillaguamish

River estuary: Quantifying the climate benefits of tidal marsh restoration. Department of

Environmental Sciences, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington.

Methodology Description: Carbon sequestration of coastal wetland was calculated in two parts. First,

a database of over 6,000 carbon values was used to estimate the carbon sequestration in metric

tons of carbon per acre per year of coastal wetland types across the U.S. Five studies comprising 72

individual carbon sequestration values were selected from the database to construct an average

value estimate. Second, the social cost of carbon was used to calculate a dollar value of carbon

sequestration. The social cost of carbon (SCC) represents the average societal costs associated with

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

each additional ton of carbon emissions (measured in CO

e), such as losses to agriculture, impacts

to human health, and increased disaster risk. In the context of actions that reduce carbon emissions

(e.g., energy efficiency) or actively sequester carbon (e.g., wetland restoration), the SCC represents

the value of these actions in terms of avoided cost to society and is used by federal agencies in the

U.S. and updated on a regular basis by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of

Greenhouse Gases (IWGSCGG). The value for carbon sequestration used was derived from the

IWGSCGG—a result of Executive Order 13990.

Specifically, the 2020 value was used: $51/metric

ton CO

e, or $195.81/metric ton C in 2021 USD.

Calculation:

Source Study Average C Sequestration

Rate (metric tons

C/acre/year)

Social Cost of

Carbon

($/metric ton C)

Value

($/acre/year)

Bridgeham et al.

(2006)

0.86 195.81 170

Chmura et al. (2003)

0.87 195.81 171

Choi & Wang (2004)

0.38 195.81 75

Crooks et al. (2014)

0.64 195.81 125

Duarte et al. (2005)

Not provided Not provided 36

Laffoley and Grimsditch

(2009)

Not provided Not provided 114

Poppe & Rybczyk

(2019)

0.94 195.81 183

Average

125

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: Coastal ecosystems, including wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation, are

important for the global ocean carbon cycle through permanent carbon burial. Vegetative structures

that live in these ecosystems capture carbon and are thus generally called “blue carbon.” Carbon

budget analyses suggest blue carbon structures store a vast amount of organic carbon, in part

because coastal vegetation is often dominated by long-lived organisms. The above assessment

combined 72 carbon values estimated across the U.S. to arrive at a single-dollar value for the value

of climate regulation provided by coastal wetlands. The values are averaged across different stages

of ecological health, species, age and climate types present in U.S. wetlands. The carbon value used

was standardized by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, a group

appointed by the White House. Two studies from the 2016 policy was removed from the value

calculation. Smith et al. 2006 was removed as more recent studies relevant to wetlands were

found.

Nellemann et al. 2009 was removed as it represented an extreme outlier and was more

applicable to vast expanses of marine open water, not nearshore ecosystems.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Habitat

Summary

Land Cover: Coastal Wetland

Ecosystem Service: Habitat

FEMA Value: $2,420/acre/year

Currency Value: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Meta-Analysis, Contingent valuation, Choice experiment, Productivity Value

Geographic Area of Studies: Global, United States, Florida, New York

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Adusumilli, N. 2015. “Valuation of ecosystem services from wetlands mitigation

in the United States.” Land 4(1): 182–196.

Reference 2: Brander, L.M., Florax, R.J., Vermaat, J.E. 2006. “The Empirics of Wetland

Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature.” Environmental

& Resource Economics 33: 223–250.

Reference 3: Ghermandi, A., van den Bergh, J.C., Brander, L.M., De Groot, H.L., Nunes, P.A.

2010. “Values of natural and human‐made wetlands: A meta‐analysis.” Water Resources

Research 46(12): W12516.

Reference 4: Johnston, R.J., Grigalunas, T.A., Opaluch, J.J., Mazzotta, M., Diamantedes, J.

2002. “Valuing estuarine resource services using economic and ecological models: the

Peconic Estuary System study.” Coastal Management 30(1): 47–65.

Reference 5: Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Engineers & Scientists. 2008. Indian River

Lagoon Economic Assessment and Analysis Update.

Reference 6: Woodward, R., Wui, Y. 2001. “The economic value of wetland services: A meta-

analysis.” Ecological Economics 37: 257–270.

Methodology Description: We performed a function transfer—a type of benefit transfer method—to

construct a United States–specific value from two meta-analyses on the economic value of wetlands.

The function transfers were all performed in a similar manner. Adusumilli (2015) conducted a meta-

analysis describing the value of wetlands from 72 observations in the U.S., producing a model with

an adjusted R^2 of 0.753.

Brander et al. (2006) conducted a global meta-analysis using 202

observations with an adjusted R^2 of 0.45.

Ghermandi et al. (2010) created a meta-analysis

describing the value of wetlands from 170 studies around the world; we used the reduced model

which included 416 observations and an adjusted R^2 of 0.44.

Woodward and Wui (2001)

conducted a meta-analysis on 39 wetland valuation studies.

We selected Model C for the function transfer, which included 65 observations with an R^2 of 0.582.

Model variables were set as follows: 1) variables denoting coastal wetlands were set to 1 and other

wetland variables set to 0; 2) the variable describing habitat provisioning was set to 1, all other

ecosystem service variables were set to 0; 3) if applicable, any income per capita variables were set

to the average annual household income in the U.S.,

converted to the units specified by the model;

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

4) if applicable, wetland size was set to the average size of coastal wetlands in the U.S.

5) if

applicable, variables describing GDP per capita were calculated by converting the current U.S. GDP

per capita

to the units specified by the model; 6) For Woodward and Wui (2001), “publish” was set

to 1, indicating the results should reflect published values; 7) all other variables were set to their

mean value.

The dependent variables were all at various dollar years and either per-hectare or per-acre, which we

converted to 2021 USD per acre per year. In another study of the National Estuary Program by

Johnston et al. (2002), the authors studied the Peconic Estuary System and found the value of

nursery and habitat services using a productivity value method that was designed and implemented

with physical scientists and coastal managers as part of the Peconic Estuary research program.

Their study estimated the economic value of eelgrass, inter-tidal salt marsh and sand/mud bottoms,

based on the value of fish, shellfish and bird species that these ecosystems help produce. Another

stated preference study conducted by the Hazen and Sawyer (2008) firm of environmental engineers

and scientists used contingent valuation and revealed preference approaches to estimate residents’

and visitors’ nonuse values of the Indian River Lagoon in Florida.

The authors found that visitors

and residents were willing to pay a one-time tax to protect as well as restore that lagoon, values that

have been combined in the table below.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location Value

($/acre/year)*

Adusumilli (2015) United States 124

Brander et al. (2006) Global 2,072

Ghermandi et al. (2010) Global 3,046

Johnston et al. (2002) New York

(Saltwater fish habitat)

450

Johnston et al. (2002) New York

(Seagrass Habitat)

11,708

Johnston et al. (2002) New York

(Bird habitat)

391

Hazen & Sawyer (2008) Florida 28

Woodward & Wui (2001) Global 1,545

Average

2,420

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: The studies used to derive a habitat value for this land cover include a wide sample of

regions within the U.S. Studies were chosen based on their ability to assess sensitive habitat and

nursery conditions under various coastal habitat types, in a variety of protected statuses, as well as

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

studies that use multiple valuation methodologies. The range of species habitat considered in the

chosen studies include fish species, eelgrass and kelp, estuarine cord grass, wetlands, and general

habitat types in coastal conditions for fish and birds. Improvements in the ecological integrity of

coastal habitats can lead to measurable increases in populations of fish, birds, and other forms of

plant and animal life—some of which may have commercial, recreational, or nonuse value. The

inclusion of meta-analyses, which produce value estimates from the results of typically dozens or

hundreds of studies at once, control for wide variations in ecosystem characteristics, human

preferences, and methodological aspects of valuation studies. They are increasingly used to

synthesize environmental literature and are a powerful tool that can produce customized value

estimates where domestic valuation literature is scarce. Additionally, function transfer can provide

value estimates tailored to the transfer site and often produces smaller error than traditional value

transfer. Two studies—Bockstael et al. (1989)

and Whitehead et al. (1997)

—were removed from

the 2016 Policy and replaced with newer valuation estimates. Jordan et al. (2012) was removed as it

was a secondary study that could be replaced by newer primary studies.

Two other studies—Hicks

et al. (2004)

and Isaacs et al. (2004)

—were removed and placed into a new land cover type for

shellfish reefs.

Recreation/Tourism

Summary

Land Cover: Coastal Wetland

Ecosystem Service: Recreation/Tourism

FEMA Value: $1,624/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Meta-Analysis, Contingent Valuation, Travel Cost

Geographic Area of Studies: Global, United States

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Adusumilli, N. 2015. “Valuation of ecosystem services from wetlands mitigation

in the United States.” Land 4(1): 182–196.

Reference 2: Brander, L.M., Florax, R.J., Vermaat, J.E. 2006. “The Empirics of Wetland

Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature.” Environmental

& Resource Economics 33: 223–250.

Reference 3: Ghermandi, A., van den Bergh, J.C., Brander, L.M., De Groot, H.L., Nunes, P.A.

2010. “Values of natural and human‐made wetlands: A meta‐analysis.” Water Resources

Research 46(12): W12516.

Reference 4: Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Engineers & Scientists. 2008. Indian River

Lagoon Economic Assessment and Analysis Update.

Reference 5: Johnston, R.J., Grigalunas, T.A., Opaluch, J.J., Mazzotta, M., Diamantedes, J.

2002. “Valuing estuarine resource services using economic and ecological models: The

Peconic Estuary System study.” Coastal Management 30(1): 47–65.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Reference 6: Woodward, R., Wui, Y. 2001. “The economic value of wetland services: A meta-

analysis.” Ecological Economics 37: 257–270.

Methodology Description: Johnston et al. (2002) studied the Peconic Estuary System, finding the

value of outdoor recreation activities like swimming, boating, fishing, and bird and wildlife viewing,

using a travel cost method that was designed and implemented with physical scientists and coastal

managers as part of the Peconic Estuary research program. The authors found that bird and wildlife

watching, and recreational fishing were the most highly valued activities. Hazen and Sawyer (2008)

examined a very different geography and calculate the recreational value residents and visitors

derive from the Indian River Lagoon in Florida. To do so, authors conducted a survey and examined

only primary recreational activities. In general, they found that visitors spend more than twice as

many days per year recreating in the Indian River Lagoon and that the most popular activities were

fin fishing, swimming or wading, and power boating (including water skiing, tubing, or cruising). We

also performed function transfer, a type of benefit transfer method, to construct United States–

specific values from several meta-analyses on the economic value of wetlands. The function

transfers were all performed in a similar manner. Adusumilli (2015) conducts a meta-analysis

describing the value of wetlands from 72 observations in the U.S., producing a model with an

adjusted R^2 of 0.753.

Brander et al. (2006) is a global meta-analysis using 202 observations

with an adjusted R^2 of 0.45.

Ghermandi et al. (2010) create a meta-analysis describing the value

of wetlands from 170 studies around the world; we used the reduced model which included 416

observations and an adjusted R^2 of 0.44.

Woodward and Wui (2001) conducted a meta-analysis

on 39 wetland valuation studies.

We selected Model C for the function transfer, which included 65

observations with an R^2 of 0.582. Model variables were set as follows: 1) variables denoting

coastal wetlands were set to 1 and other wetland variables set to 0; 2) variables describing

recreational activities were set to 1, all other ecosystem service variables were set to 0; 3) if

applicable, any income per capita variables were set to the average annual household income in the

U.S.,

converted to the units specified by the model; 4) if applicable, wetland size was set to the

average size of coastal wetlands in the U.S.

; 5) if applicable, variables describing GDP per capita

were calculated by converting the current U.S. GDP per capita

to the units specified by the model;

6) For Woodward and Wui (2001), “publish” was set to 1, indicating the results should reflect

published values; 7) all other variables were set to their mean value. The dependent variables were

all at various dollar years and either per-hectare or per-acre, which we converted to 2021 USD per

acre per year.

Calculation:

Source Study Study Location Value

($/acre/year)*

Adusumilli (2015) United States 582

Brander et al. (2006) Global 172

Ghermandi et al. (2010) Global 639

Johnston et al. (2002) New York 201

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Source Study Study Location Value

($/acre/year)*

Hazen & Sawyer (2008) Florida 4,337

Woodward & Wui (2001) Global 3,816

Average

1,624

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: Coastal ecosystems offer unique opportunities for recreational activities as they create a

wide range of habitats for many types of wildlife (both migratory and not) that can enhance

recreational experiences. Recreational value is also highly dependent upon location, activities,

ecosystem types, and valuation methods. The group of selected studies employs a wide variety of

estimating methodologies, recreational activity types, and examines very diverse geographies. Such

spread in the evidence is important for robustness and validity of a final estimate. In addition, meta-

analyses produce value estimates from the results of typically dozens or hundreds of studies at

once, controlling for wide variations in ecosystem characteristics, human preferences, and

methodological aspects of valuation studies. They are increasingly used to synthesize environmental

literature and are a powerful tool that can produce customized value estimates where domestic

valuation literature is scarce. Additionally, function transfer can provide value estimates tailored to

the transfer site and often produces smaller error than traditional value transfer.

Flood and Storm Hazard Risk Reduction

Summary

Land Cover: Coastal Wetland

Ecosystem Service: Flood and Storm Hazard Risk Reduction

FEMA Value: $1,035/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Meta-Analysis

Geographic Area of Studies: Global, United States

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Sun, F., Carson, R.T. 2020. “Coastal wetlands reduce property damage during

tropical cyclones.” PNAS 117(11): 5719–5725.

Reference 2: Adusumilli, N. 2015. “Valuation of ecosystem services from wetlands mitigation

in the United States.” Land 4(1): 182–196.

Reference 3: Brander, L.M., Florax, R.J., Vermaat, J.E. 2006. “The Empirics of Wetland

Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature.” Environmental

& Resource Economics 33: 223–250.

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Reference 4: Ghermandi, A., van den Bergh, J.C., Brander, L.M., De Groot, H.L., and Nunes,

P.A. 2010. “Values of natural and human‐made wetlands: A meta‐analysis.” Water

Resources Research 46(12): W12516.

Reference 5: Woodward, R., Wui, Y. 2001. “The economic value of wetland services: A meta-

analysis.” Ecological Economics 37: 257–270.

Methodology Description: Sun and Carson (2020) analyzed property damage from 88 tropical storms

hitting the U.S. between 1996 and 2016.

The expected economic value of storm hazard risk

reduction for coastal wetlands was determined for all 237 coastal counties along the Atlantic and

Gulf coasts. The median value of wetlands across all counties was presented in 2016 USD/square

kilometer/year, which we converted to USD/acre/year and then inflated to 2021 USD/acre/year (as

provided in the table below). We performed a function transfer—a type of benefit transfer method—to

construct a United States–specific value from two meta-analyses on the economic value of wetlands.

The function transfers were all performed in a similar manner. Adusumilli (2015) conducted a meta-

analysis describing the value of wetlands from 72 observations in the U.S., producing a model with

an adjusted R^2 of 0.753.

Brander et al. (2006) conducted a global meta-analysis using 202

observations with an adjusted R^2 of 0.45.

Ghermandi et al. (2010) created a meta-analysis

describing the value of wetlands from 170 studies around the world; we used the reduced model

which included 416 observations and an adjusted R^2 of 0.44.

Woodward and Wui (2001)

conducted a meta-analysis on 39 wetland valuation studies.

We selected Model C for the function

transfer, which included 65 observations with an R^2 of 0.582. Model variables were set as follows:

1) variables denoting coastal wetlands were set to 1 and other wetland variables set to 0; 2)

variables describing flood or storm hazard risk reduction were set to 1, all other ecosystem service

variables were set to 0; 3) if applicable, any income per capita variables were set to the average

annual household income in the U.S.,

converted to the units specified by the model; 4) if

applicable, wetland size was set to the average size of coastal wetlands in the U.S.,

5) if applicable,

variables describing GDP per capita were calculated by converting the current U.S. GDP per capita

to the units specified by the model; 6) for Woodward and Wui (2001), “publish” was set to 1,

indicating the results should reflect published values; 7) all other variables were set to their mean

value. The dependent variables were all at various dollar years and either per-hectare or per-acre,

which we converted to 2021 USD per acre per year.

Calculation:

Source Study Value ($/acre/year)*

Adusumilli (2015) 75

Brander et al. (2006) 1,040

Ghermandi et al. (2010) 1,496

Sun & Carson (2020) 415

Woodward & Wui (2001) 1,986

Average

1,035

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Discussion: Sun and Carson (2020) conducted a robust study based on a decade of observed storm

damage data. We converted the median value from this study, which is conservative in comparison

to the mean value, indicating that study results tended to skew on the lower end of the range. Meta-

analyses produce value estimates from the results of typically dozens or hundreds of studies at

once, controlling for wide variations in ecosystem characteristics, human preferences, and

methodological aspects of valuation studies. They are increasingly used to synthesize environmental

literature and are a powerful tool that can produce customized value estimates where domestic

valuation literature is scarce. Additionally, function transfer can provide value estimates tailored to

the transfer site and often produces smaller error than traditional value transfer.

Water Filtration

Summary

Land Cover: Coastal Wetland

Ecosystem Service: Water Filtration

FEMA Value: $1,558/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Meta-Analysis

Geographic Area of Studies: Global, United States

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Adusumilli, N. 2015. “Valuation of ecosystem services from wetlands mitigation

in the United States.” Land 4(1): 182–196.

Reference 2: Brander, L.M., Florax, R.J., Vermaat, J.E. 2006. “The Empirics of Wetland

Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature.” Environmental

& Resource Economics 33: 223–250.

Reference 3: Ghermandi, A., van den Bergh, J.C., Brander, L.M., De Groot, H.L., Nunes, P.A.

2010. “Values of natural and human‐made wetlands: A meta‐analysis.” Water Resources

Research 46(12): W12516.

Reference 4: Woodward, R., Wui, Y. 2001. “The economic value of wetland services: A meta-

analysis.” Ecological Economics 37: 257–270.

Methodology Description: We performed a function transfer—a type of benefit transfer method—to

construct a United States–specific value from two meta-analyses on the economic value of wetlands.

The function transfers were all performed in a similar manner. Adusumilli (2015) conducted a meta-

analysis describing the value of wetlands from 72 observations in the U.S., producing a model with

an adjusted R^2 of 0.753.

Brander et al. (2006) conducted a global meta-analysis using 202

observations with an adjusted R^2 of 0.45.

Ghermandi et al. (2010) created a meta-analysis

describing the value of wetlands from 170 studies around the world; we used the reduced model

which included 416 observations and an adjusted R^2 of 0.44.

Woodward & Wui (2001)

conducted a meta-analysis on 39 wetland valuation studies.

We selected Model C for the function

transfer, which included 65 observations with an R^2 of 0.582. Model variables were set as follows:

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

1) variables denoting coastal wetlands were set to 1 and other wetland variables set to 0; 2)

variables describing water quality improvement or water filtration by wetlands were set to 1, all other

ecosystem service variables were set to 0; 3) if applicable, any income per capita variables were set

to the average annual household income in the U.S.,

converted to the units specified by the model;

4) if applicable, wetland size was set to the average size of coastal wetlands in the U.S.,

5) if

applicable, variables describing GDP per capita were calculated by converting the current U.S. GDP

per capita

to the units specified by the model; 6) For Woodward & Wui (2001), “publish” was set to

1, indicating the results should reflect published values; 7) all other variables were set to their mean

value. The dependent variables were all at various dollar years and either per-hectare or per-acre,

which we converted to 2021 USD per acre per year.

Calculation:

Source Study Value ($/acre/year)*

Adusumilli (2015) 417

Brander et al. (2006) 1,697

Ghermandi et al. (2010) 2,009

Woodward & Wui (2001) 2,108

Average

1,558

* All values are presented in 2021 USD

Discussion: Meta-analyses produce value estimates from the results of typically dozens or hundreds

of studies at once, controlling for wide variations in ecosystem characteristics, human preferences,

and methodological aspects of valuation studies. They are increasingly used to synthesize

environmental literature and are a powerful tool that can produce customized value estimates where

domestic valuation literature is scarce. Additionally, function transfer can provide value estimates

tailored to the transfer site and often produces smaller error than traditional value transfer. The two

studies from the 2016 FEMA policy were originally derived using value transfer; herein we present

updated values using function transfer methods. This variation in methodology application accounts

for the difference in values attributed to Brander et al. (2006) and Woodward & Wui (2001) between

the 2016 policy and those listed here.

Water Supply

Summary

Land Cover: Coastal Wetland

Ecosystem Service: Water Supply

FEMA Value: $544/acre/year

Currency Year: 2021 USD

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Source Studies and Value Derivation

Valuation Methods: Meta-Analysis

Geographic Area of Studies: Global, United States

Source Studies:

Reference 1: Adusumilli, N. 2015. “Valuation of ecosystem services from wetlands mitigation

in the United States.” Land 4(1): 182–196.

Reference 2: Brander, L.M., Florax, R. J., Vermaat, J. E. 2006. “The Empirics of Wetland

Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature.” Environmental

& Resource Economics 33: 223–250.

Reference 3: Ghermandi, A., van den Bergh, J.C., Brander, L.M., De Groot, H.L., Nunes, P.A.

2010. “Values of natural and human‐made wetlands: A meta‐analysis.” Water Resources

Research 46(12): W12516.

Reference 4: Woodward, R., Wui, Y. 2001. “The economic value of wetland services: A meta-

analysis.” Ecological Economics 37: 257–270.

Methodology Description: We performed a function transfer—a type of benefit transfer method—to

construct a United States–specific value from two meta-analyses on the economic value of wetlands.

The function transfers were all performed in a similar manner. Adusumilli (2015) conducted a meta-

analysis describing the value of wetlands from 72 observations in the U.S., producing a model with

an adjusted R^2 of 0.753.

Brander et al. (2006) conducted a global meta-analysis using 202

observations with an adjusted R^2 of 0.45.

100

Ghermandi et al. (2010) created a meta-analysis

describing the value of wetlands from 170 studies around the world; we used the reduced model

which included 416 observations and an adjusted R^2 of 0.44.

101

Woodward and Wui (2001)

conducted a meta-analysis on 39 wetland valuation studies.

102

We selected Model C for the function

transfer, which included 65 observations with an R^2 of 0.582. Model variables were set as follows:

1) variables denoting coastal wetlands were set to 1 and other wetland variables set to 0; 2)

variables describing water supply were set to 1, all other ecosystem service variables were set to 0;

3) if applicable, any income per capita variables were set to the average annual household income in

the U.S.,

103

converted to the units specified by the model; 4) if applicable, wetland size was set to

the average size of coastal wetlands in the U.S.,

104

5) if applicable, variables describing GDP per

capita were calculated by converting the current U.S. GDP per capita

105

to the units specified by the

model; 6) For Woodward and Wui (2001), “publish” was set to 1, indicating the results should reflect

published values; 7) all other variables were set to their mean value. The dependent variables were

all at various dollar years and either per-hectare or per-acre, which we converted to 2021 USD per

acre per year.

Calculation:

Source Study Value ($/acre/year)*

Adusumilli (2015) 307

Brander et al. (2006) 350

Ghermandi et al. (2010) 879

FEMA Ecosystem Service Value Updates

Source Study Value ($/acre/year)*

Woodward & Wui (2001) 642

Average

544