NFFO70002102420 Draft Estuarine Model 11 3 2020 NF-FO7000-21-02420.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 12 MB Posted Jul 20, 2021

Attached to: REFINE AND EXPAND HABITAT EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS MODELS FOR CREDIT CALCULATION UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: ESTUARY MODEL
Solicitation number: NFFO70002102420NGB
Issued by: Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
NFFO70002102420 SF18.doc	DOC document	Jul 20, 2021
NFFO70002102420 Combined Synopsis - Sample FAC 2021-06.docx	DOCX document	Jul 20, 2021
NFFO70002102420 SOW (RFQ).docx	DOCX document	Jul 20, 2021

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Instruct

This is the spreadsheet for the Draft Estuarine Habitat Values Model

Version 6-4-2020

Yellow cells are to fill in.

Grey cells contain essential questions

Gree cells contain additional explanations

Orange cells contain informational summary values

Impact and Benefit Determination Riparian
The Riparian Zone encompassess the area within 15 meters (49.5 feet) of HAT. There may be locations in which woody vegetation growth extends below HAT, especially in areas with stabilizes shorelines. In those locations, the area where woody vegetation is planted for mitigation may be entered in this tab, including any areas below HAT.
You do not need to fill out this tab if your project has no impacts/benefits to riparian areas.
Riparian areas can be evaluated with this worksheet, regardless of their proximity to the affected USZ and LSZ site. For example, riparian re-vegetation/improvements can be implemented on sites adjacent or in close proximity to USZ impact sites.
It is up to the project biologist to make sure, that riparian improvements are benefiting the same listed Chinook populations impacted by a nearshore project. Sevice Area concept.
Relevant Riparian Area in SQFT (width of considered riparian area is 50 feet landward of HAT times the shoreline length of the action area)
Yellow cells are to fill in.
Grey cells contain essential questions
Gree cells contain additional explanations
Orange cells contain informational summary values
Purple Cells contain BPJ reduction/credit factors
A General Project Factors
				Notes
Duration	Are the project impacts permanent?	Yes/No	No	If project impacts or benefits are not permanent make sure to select NO.
	If temporary enter years of project impact	Temp Impact Years	40	Enter number of years project will exist if other than permanent (leave blank if permanent)
	Add time delay between impact and vegetation restoration in number of years.		1	Don't enter any number below 1.
Habitat Evaluation
				Before		After
#	Indicator of Physical Habitat Question		Riparian Habitat Value	Area [sqft]	Habitat Value times discounting factors	Area [sqft]	Habitat Value times discounting factors	Time till fully functioning for restoration	Elements of Nearshore Marine PCEs addressed	Notes
Enter how many square feet of each cover type as described below under 1a to 1d is present before and after. For example, if there are 1000 SF of shrubs before and 1000 SF of impervious after enter 1000 in E 22 and 1000 in G 24.
1a	TREES: How many sqft of the riparian area that will be improved or degraded within 50 feet landward of HAT along length of shoreline action area are vegetated with trees: native woody vegetation higher than 13 feet ?		0.55	0	0.28	0	0.28	20	F, C	For a restored area to count as tree cover the performance standard is: Minimum of 90% tree canopy cover with shrubs in understory at 20 years.
1b	SHRUBS: How many sqft of the riparian area that will be improved or degraded within50 feet landward of HAT along length of shoreline action area are vegetated with shrubs, native woody vegetation lower than 13 feet?		0.40	0	0.20	0	0.20	10	F, C
1c	HERBACEOUS VEG: How many sqft of the riparian area that will be improved or degraded within 50 ft width along length of shoreline action area are vegetated with lawn, herbaceous vegetation, or invasive vegetation? Include all invasive vegetation in this category, regardless of type/size.		0.10	0	0.05	0	0.05	1.0	F, C	How Habitat Values and Discount Factors were scaled: A shrub at 49 ft from the water should provide more value to fish (allochtonous input) than grass. Most of the 0.1 habitat value for grass is attributed to infiltration and WQ function.
1d	IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/UNVEGETATED: How many sqft of the riparian area that will be improved or degraded within 50 feet landward of HAT along length of shoreline action area are covered with mostly impervious surface like pavers, gravel, concrete, wood deck?		0.00	0	No discounting factors apply as value already 0.	0	No discounting factors apply as value already 0.	1.0	F, C
	Discounting Factors		Answer Fromat	Discount Factors related to Distance & Connectivity				A third discounting factor related to the shoreline condition (stabilized or natural, how much function and connectivity does vegetation have to water) is automatically calculated below using the shoreline information from the USZ.
1	Distance of riparian vegetation from the shoreline, bulkhead or HAT for natural shoreline. For example, for a row of trees within 50 ft landward of HAT, but behind 9 feet of lawn that was adjacent to the water, enter distance, 9 ft, in ft.		0 ft to 50 ft	0	1.00	0	1.00
2	Do structures between vegetation and shoreline reduce connectivity and function of native woody vegetation? Enter % [1-100] of area that is disconnected before and after project. If 100 % of considered area is disconnected/shielded from shoreline by buildings like a boat shed, enter 100.		0 to 100 percent	0	1.00	0	1.00			develop bins
	Is riparian vegetation disconnected from upper intertidal via armoring?			yes	0.50	yes	0.50	Discount factor for when riparian vegetation is disconnected by hard shoreline armoring like bulkheads and riprap from the USZ. When the woody riparian vegetation is disconnected from the USZ its ability to provide shade, food, and cover is diminuished.
Total affected riparin area [sqft]		square footage before and after needs to be the same.		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	Area weighted average over different vegetation types for time untill new vegetation would fully function + delay between impact and begin of restoration.
Total affected riparin area [acres]				0.00000	Weighted Average Habitat Value Before		Weighted Average Habitat Value After
C. Credit/Debit Factors Multipliers
Credit factors apply to the entire elevation polygon, they do not reflect a before after change. They are a function of ecological site conditions.
Credit/Debit Factors				Enter Yes/No
	Is the project located within 5 miles of a Major Estuary Zone? (see Corps webpage for zone mapping)			No	1.0	Credit Factors Need to be updated for model
	Major Estuary Zone Maps
	Is the project is located within a pocket estuary?			Yes	1.4
	Washington State Coastal Atlas
	Is there observed (as mapped or determined by WDFW) sand lance or surf smelt spawning on the project site?			No	1.0
	WDFW Forage Fish Spawning Map
	Is the project located at a feeder bluff?			No	1.0
	Coastal Atlas Map
	Uncertainty factor for new projects			No	1.0
Summary Credit/Debit Factor				1.4

Discount if vegetation is planted 49 feet away from water		0.7	If vegetation is planted 49 feet from the shoreline (bulkhead or HAT) the habitat value of this vegetation is 30 percent of that immediately adjacent to the shoreline.
Discount if vegetation is 100% disconnected from shoreline by vertical structures like boat houses.		0.9	If vegetation is 100% disconnected by structures like boat houses from shoreline, 10% of its value remains via some food/insects still reaching the water and infiltaration of rainwater.
DSAYs for USZ	0.0000
Conservation Points	0.00

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspxhttp://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory/Permit-Guidebook/RGP/https://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=19b8f74e2d41470cbd80b1af8dedd6b3&extent=-126.1368,45.6684,-119.6494,49.0781https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx shorel Stabiliz USZ install

Hook up to HEA from Paul C
Enter new or to be newly installed (for replacements or setbacks) armoring here.
Nearshore Habitat Value Determination Model: Upper Shore Zone Habitat Value Determination
The Upper Shore Zone encompassess the area between HAT and +5 MLLW. This model determines the habitat values for before and after a change occurs, restoration or degradation, for the entire upper shore zone. Depending on the project, only part of this area is the affected area for which habitats values should be determined. The NHVM and HEA are based on evaluating differenced between before and after conditions. If areas don't experiance a change in conditions, they can be excluded. For example, if a new overwater structure is installed waterward of an existing bulkhead, the area between HAT the bulkhead does not need to be included.
If several actions occur at one site, evaluate shoreline armoring effects here and OWS and boat ramp effects in the Shade and Structure Im USZ tab.
Yellow cells are to fill in.
Grey cells contain essential questions
Gree cells contain additional explanations
Orange cells contain informational summary values
Light blue cells contain factors from Shade Imp tab
Purple Cells indicate BPJ reduction/credit factors
A 1. General Project Factors
	Question	Input Format	User Entry	Notes
Duration	Are the project impacts permanent?	Yes/No	No	If project impacts or benefits are not permanent make sure to select NO.
	If temporary enter years of project impact.	Temp Impact Years	50	Enter number of years project will exist (design life) if other than permanent. Leave blank if permanent. Use 50 years for all hard shoreline armoring
Time Lag	Years Until Full Functioning Habitat	Years	1	If purchasing credits through a mitigation bank, enter 1. If calculating for permittee responsible mitigation, enter how many years after the impact full function of mitigation would be achieved. For restoration, the default for achieving full function after restoration in the nearshore marine environment is 3 years. The lowest possible value is 1. Do not enter values less than 1.
	Maximum Habitat Value for USZ 1		0.6	USZ 1 is MHHW to HAT
	Maximum Habitat Value for USZ 2		0.9	USZ 2 is +5 MLLW to MHHW
A 2. General Project Factors for Shoreline stabilization and restoration projects
Don't fill out entry block A2. unless you are evaluating changes in shoreline stabilization.
	Automatic Area Calculations for Upper Shore Zone 1 & 2, FYI only, no user input!
		Linear feet Before/ Natural, Soft, or Hybrid	Linear feet After	SQFT Before	Acres Before	SQFT after	Acres After	Total affected area	Check from NoEntryDSAY
	Length (along shoreline) of area affected in the long term by project. For installation of shoreline armoring that is the length of the armoring.	100.00	100.00
USZ1	Width of Upper Shore Zone 1 landward of hard armoring [ft slope distance]	0.00	25.00	- 0	0.000	2,500.00	0.057
USZ1	Effective width of Upper Shore Zone 1 [ft slope distance] total for before/no armoring, and waterward of hard shoreline armoring for after/ column D.	25.00	0.00	2,500.00	0.057	0.000	0.000	0.057	0.057
USZ2	Width of Upper Shore Zone 2 landward of hard armoring [ft slope distance]	0.00	0.00	- 0	0.000	- 0	0.000	0.046	0.046
USZ2	Effective width of Upper Shore Zone 2 [ft slope distance] adversely affected area waterward of hard shoreline armoring in USZ 2 for after/hard armoring/column D.	0.00	20.00	- 0	0.000	2,000.00	0.046

	Site Conditions			Notes
	For Shoreline Stabilization	Before: Set to Natural for Calculator	After
	Length of shoreline to be altered [ft] - same for before and after	100.00			Intern Project: It would be helpful to design a graphic that represents the project elevations in relationship to armoring.
A	For natural shoreline and soft shore treatments: Distance of HAT to MHHW [ft slope distance]. For hard armoring leave empty and fill out B.	25.00		Depending on soft shore or hard shore fill in A or B, HAT in PS varies between approx. 9 ft MLLW in Dungeness and 17 ft MLLW in Olympia. Used 25 ft as average for scenarios where existing BH prevents determination of slope distance MHHW to HAT; based on average accross 4 example profiles in PS.
B	For hard shoreline armoring: Distance between HAT and shoreline treatment [ft slope distance]		25.00
C	Extend of armoring effects waterward of hard armoring. [ft slope distance]	20.00		The areal extent of effects is different for wrack, sediment corsening, beach lowering, and sediment supply/ beach shortening. While effects on wrack usually are limited to within 15 feet (pers com Dethier), the areal extent of effects is likely larger for sediment corsening, beach lowering, and sediment supply/ beach shortening. Using 20 feet is our attempt to describe the area with the most noticable effects of armoring on wrack, beach width and sediment characteristics.
D1	"YES" is selected if hard shoreline armoring is at or waterward of MHHW. "NA" stands for natural, soft, or hybrid condition.	NA	Yes	No for shoreline armoring above MHHW. Needs to match I 47/48
D2	Distance between MHHW and shoreline treatment [ft slope distance]		0.00	This is similar to relative encroachment approache in Dethier et al. 2016
D3	Extent of adverse effects waterward of hard armoring in USZ 2.		20.00	The areal extent of effects is different for wrack, sediment corsening, beach lowering, and sediment supply/ beach shortening. While effects on wrack usually are limited to within 15 feet (pers com Dethier), the areal extent of effects is likely larger for sediment corsening, beach lowering, and sediment supply/ beach shortening. Using 20 feet is our attempt to describe the area with the most noticable effects of armoring on wrack, beach width and sediment characteristics.
	Check	need to design check cell		These cell display a waring if the before and after distances don't add up to the same distance between HAT and + 5 MLLW
	The habitat value for areas landward of hard armoring is automatically set to 0 to reflect a complete loss of access and sediment supply. If such areas are planted with riparian vegetation the value as riparian habitat can reflected in the riparian tab. For such situations impervious surface should be selected as the before habitat condition in the riparian tab.
B. Habitat Evaluation USZ 1&2

					Before			After
					Only areas waterward of hard armoring that are accessilbe to fish are evaluated. Areas landward of hard armoring automatically receive a habitat value of 0.
#	Indicator of Physical Habitat/ Physical and Biological Features	Rating Questions	Percent Influence of Indicator on Habitat Value	Scores 0 to 1	Site Condition	Category specific Score	Indicator Specific Summary Score	Site Condition	Category specific Score	Indicator Specific Summary Score	Elements of Nearshore Marine PCEs addressed	Notes
Shoreline Complexity: Food and Cover (Beach Logs and Wrack)
1a	Habitat Function from large wood and/or beach wrack. Evaluate how much beach wrack and wood are present and what function they provides to site. (Sobocinski et al 2010; Heerhartz et al. 2014, 2016; Strain et al. 2018)	Beach logs and wrack line provide full function. Chose this option for hybrid and soft armoring and natural shoreline.	0.1	1	Yes	1.00		No	0.00		F,C	Shoreline complexity including shallow-sloped banks with rack and beach logs as well as undercut banks provide food and cover to juvenile salmonids.
1b		Beach logs and wrack line provide medium function. Choose this option for hard armoring above MHHW.		0.5	No	0.00		No	0.00
1c		Beach logs provide little to no function. Choose this option for shoreline armoring at or below MHHW.		0	No	0.00	1.00	Yes	0.00	0.00
Shallow Water Habitat/ Unobstructed migratory Corridor
For the nearshore structures this model evaluates, the juvenile migratory corridor can be either not availiable, unobstructed, or partially impacted. For situations where the habitat is not availiable (behind hard armoring or taken up by 3D structures including piles and jetties) the after HV is set to 0. For OWS the migratorry corridor is still availiable, but obstructed and impacted based on factors including grating and elevation.
2	The model only evaluates areas accessible to fish. Areas landward of hard armoring automatically receive ovarall habitat value of 0 and are not evaluated here.	This is a yes no scenario for hard armoring and is considered automatically in the HEA. The habitat value for all areas rendered inaccessible by hard armoring is set to 0.	0.45	1	1.00			1.00				Shading from OWS is evaluated in the USZ 2 tab in the NHVM. Currently site-specific shading from armoring in the area waterward of armoring has not been included in model considerations.
Substrate/Sediment Quality (physical) and Quantity: Active Erosion					shoreline length in feet			shoreline length in feet			Prosser et al., 2018		For hybrid and soft: Develop assessment of potential small impact in terms of reducing lanward migration of shoreline.
3a	Evaluation of active erosion depending on the typ of armoring. While the process of active erosion in response to shoreline armoring is well established (Prosser et al.,2018), specific effects may vary with key physical parameters including beach slope and location of armoring (Detheir et al, 2016). The type of shoreline armoring can affect the reflective wave rgime and resulting local coarsening of substrate and lowering of beach grade. (Nordstrom, 20014, Detheir et al., 2016)	How many linear feet of the existing or proposed shoreline is natural, soft, or hybrid?	0.1	1.00	100	1.000		0	0.000		F, C, M
3b		How many linear feet of the existing or proposed armoring that is "Rock"?		0.20	0	0.000		100	0.200		F, C, M
3c		How many linear feet of the existing or proposed armoring that is "Concrete or Sheetpile"?		0	0	0.000	1.00	0	0.000	0.20	F, C, M
Substrate/Sediment Quality (physical) and Quantity
4a	We are evlauating wether to include different value associated with different substrate types. Read lit from Janson Toft, request input from Tribes, WDFW, DNR.
4b	Evaluation of effect of hard armoring on local sediment supply. At any beach, there is input of some amount of sediment and landward migration of shorline (passive erosion caused by sealevel rise (Dethier et al., 2016)). Hard armoring prevents both, the iput of sediment from upland sources to the bach and any lanward migration of the beach. Different from hard armoring, natural, soft, and hybrid shoreline allows for or includes uslope supply of sediment as well as some landward shorline migration. In front of hard armoring, we assume beach narrowing and reduction in quality. That this effect of armoring on sediment quality and quantity is especially severe at bluff backed beaches is captured in the credit factors.		0.15	1.000		1.000	1.00		0.500	0.50		Full value of 1 assigned for natural, soft, and hybrid. Vallue assigned for hard armoring 0.5. Effect of armoring seems to be most detrimental in supply reaches and in areas with high existing armoring. Consider for next version changing impact to sediment determination from armoring to 1) apply to supply reaches, only, 2) apply to areas with existing armoring above X percent (Detheir). Use DOE publication "Mapping Bluffs and Beaches of PS to Quantify Sediment Supply" 18-06-008
Vegetation
5a	Vegetation Condition, select one	Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support saltmarsh vegetation is covered with >60% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Distichlis sp.	0.1	1.00	No	0.00		No	0.00		M, F, C	Intertidal vegetation can be expected intermittently at low wave energy beaches. Consider refining model to assess impacts/benefits separately for different wave regiemes and/or geomorphologies.
5b		Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support salmarsh vegetation is covered with >30% and <60% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Disticilis sp.		0.75	No	0.00		No	0.00		M, F, C
5c		Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support salmarsh vegetation is covered with >5% and < 30% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Disticilis sp..		0.50	No	0.00		No	0.00
5d		Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support salmarsh vegetation is covered with <5% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Disticilis sp..		0.25	Yes	0.25	0.25	Yes	0.25	0.25
Chemical Water and Sediment Quality
6a	Evaluate change in contaminants in water quality and sediment quality condition. Select one condition for before and after. Use medium for default.	Good	0.1	1.00	No	0.00		No	0.00		Water Quality	For the removal of any structure containing AZCA-treated wood use the Conservation Calculator to enter tons of creosote to be removed. The Conservation Calculator includes standard assumptions for creosote and allows for consistent assessment.
6b		Medium		0.50	No	0.00		No	0.00		Water Quality
6c		Poor		0.00	Yes	0.00	0.00	Yes	0.00	0.00	Water Quality
Habitat Value without discounting to max per zone			1			NHV	0.825		NHV	0.570
DSAYs for USZ 1
DSAYs for USZ 2
Sum DSAYs Shoreline Stab USZ		0.00000

shorel Stabiliz USZ remove

Hook up to HEA from Paul C
Enter to be removed or replaced armoring here.
Nearshore Habitat Value Determination Model: Upper Shore Zone Habitat Value Determination
The Upper Shore Zone encompassess the area between HAT and +5 MLLW. This model determines the habitat values for before and after a change occurs, restoration or degradation, for the entire upper shore zone. Depending on the project, only part of this area is the affected area for which habitats values should be determined. The NHVM and HEA are based on evaluating differenced between before and after conditions. If areas don't experiance a change in conditions, they can be excluded. For example, if a new overwater structure is installed waterward of an existing bulkhead, the area between HAT the bulkhead does not need to be included.
If several actions occur at one site, evaluate shoreline armoring effects here and OWS and boat ramp effects in the Shade and Structure Im USZ tab.
Yellow cells are to fill in.
Grey cells contain essential questions
Gree cells contain additional explanations
Orange cells contain informational summary values
Light blue cells contain factors from Shade Imp tab
Purple Cells indicate BPJ reduction/credit factors
A 1. General Project Factors
	Question	Input Format	User Entry	Notes
Duration	Are the project impacts/benefits permanent?	Yes/No	No	If project impacts or benefits are not permanent make sure to select NO.
	For armoring installed more than 20 years ago the default entry value is 10; for armoring installed less than 20 years ago change input to 30.	Years	10	For simplification, we averaged the remaining existance of shoreline armoring with a 50 year design life in two categories. Armoring built 25 years or more ago has an average of 10 years design life left. Armoring built within the last 20 years has an average of 30 years of design life left.
Time Lag	Years Until Full Functioning Habitat	Years	1	If purchasing credits through a mitigation bank, enter 1. If calculating for permittee responsible mitigation, enter how many years after the impact full function of mitigation would be achieved. For restoration, the default for achieving full function after restoration in the nearshore marine environment is 3 years. The lowest possible value is 1. Do not enter values less than 1.
	Maximum Habitat Value for USZ 1		0.6	USZ 1 is MHHW to HAT
	Maximum Habitat Value for USZ 2		0.9	USZ 2 is +5 MLLW to MHHW
A 2. General Project Factors for Shoreline stabilization and restoration projects
	Automatic Area Calculations for Upper Shore Zone 1 & 2, FYI only, no user input!
		Linear feet Before	Linear feet After	SQFT waterward in respective USZ Before	Acres Before	SQFT waterward in respective USZ after	Acres After
	Length (along shoreline) of area affected in the long term by project. For installation of shoreline armoring that is the length of the armoring.	100.00	100.00
USZ1	Width of Upper Shore Zone 1 landward of hard armoring [ft slope distance]	25.00	0.00	2,500.00	0.057	- 0	0.000
USZ1	Effective width of Upper Shore Zone 1 waterward of hard shoreline armoring for after/ column D.	0.00	25.00	0	0.000	2,500.00	0.057
USZ2	Width of Upper Shore Zone 2 landward of hard armoring [ft slope distance]	0.00	0.00	- 0	0.000	- 0	0.000
USZ2	Effective width of Upper Shore Zone 2 [ft slope distance], adversely affected area waterward of hard shoreline armoring in USZ 2 for after/hard armoring/column C.	20.00	0.00	2,000.00	0.046	- 0	0.000

	Site Conditions			Notes
	For Shoreline Stabilization	Before	After	Cells in this block are filled in automatically from entries in bolck B
	Length of shoreline to be altered [ft] - same for before and after	100.00
A	For natural shoreline and soft shore treatments: Distance of HAT to MHHW [ft slope distance]. For hard armoring leave empty and fill out B.		25.00	Depending on soft shore or hard shore fill in A or B, HAT in PS varies between approx. 9 ft MLLW in Dungeness and 17 ft MLLW in Olympia. Used 25 ft as average for scenarios where existing BH prevents determination of slope distance MHHW to HAT; based on average accross 4 example profiles in PS.
B	For hard shoreline armoring: Distance between HAT and shoreline treatment [ft slope distance]. Leave empty for natural shoreline, soft, and hybrid.	25.00
C	Extend of armoring effects waterward of hard armoring. [ft slope distance] - set value via expert opinion.	20.00		The areal extent of effects is different for wrack, sediment corsening, beach lowering, and sediment supply/ beach shortening. While effects on wrack usually are limited to within 15 feet (pers com Dethier), the areal extent of effects is likely larger for sediment corsening, beach lowering, and sediment supply/ beach shortening. Using 20 feet is our attempt to describe the area with the most noticable effects of armoring on wrack, beach width and sediment characteristics.
D1	"YES" is selected if hard shoreline armoring is at or waterward of MHHW. "NA" stands for natural, soft, or hybrid condition.	Yes	NA	No for shoreline armoring above MHHW.
D2	Distance between MHHW and shoreline treatment [ft slope distance]	0.00	na	This is similar to relative encroachment approache in Dethier et al. 2016
D3	Extent of adverse effects on CH waterward of hard armoring in USZ 2.	20.00		The areal extent of effects is different for wrack, sediment corsening, beach lowering, and sediment supply/ beach shortening. While effects on wrack usually are limited to within 15 feet (pers com Dethier), the areal extent of effects is likely larger for sediment corsening, beach lowering, and sediment supply/ beach shortening. Using 20 feet is our attempt to describe the area with the most noticable effects of armoring on wrack, beach width and sediment characteristics.
	Check			These cell display a waring if the before and after distances don't add up to the same distance between HAT and + 5 MLLW
	The habitat value for areas landward of hard armoring is automatically set to 0 to reflect a complete loss of access and sediment supply. If such areas are planted with riparian vegetation the value as riparian habitat can reflected in the riparian tab. For such situations impervious surface should be selected as the before habitat condition in the riparian tab.
B. Habitat Evaluation USZ 1&2

					Before			After
					Only areas waterward of hard armoring that are accessilbe to fish are evaluated. Areas landward of hard armoring automatically receive a habitat value of 0.
#	Indicator of Physical Habitat/ Physical and Biological Features	Rating Questions	Percent Influence of Indicator on Habitat Value	Scores 0 to 1	Site Condition	Category specific Score	Indicator Specific Summary Score	Site Condition	Category specific Score	Indicator Specific Summary Score	Elements of Nearshore Marine PCEs addressed	Notes
Shoreline Complexity: Beach Logs and Wrack
1a	Habitat Function from large wood and/or beach wrack. Evaluate how much beach wrack and wood are present and what function they provides to site. (Sobocinski et al 2010; Heerhartz et al. 2014, 2016; Strain et al. 2018)	Beach logs and wrack line provide full function. Chose this option for hybrid and soft armoring and natural shoreline.	0.1	1	No	0.00		Yes	1.00		F,C	Shoreline complexity including shallow-sloped banks with rack and beach logs as well as undercut banks provide food and cover to juvenile salmonids.
1b		Beach logs and wrack line provide medium function. Choose this option for hard armoring above MHHW.		0.5	No	0.00		No	0.00
1c		Beach logs provide little to no function. Choose this option for shoreline armoring at or below MHHW.		0	Yes	0.00	0.00	No	0.00	1.00
Shallow Water Habitat/ Unobstructed migratory Corridor
For the nearshore structures this model evaluates, the juvenile migratory corridor can be either not availiable, unobstructed, or partially impacted. For situations where the habitat is not availiable (behind hard armoring or taken up by 3D structures including piles and jetties) the after HV is set to 0. For OWS the migratorry corridor is still availiable, but obstructed and impacted based on factors including grating and elevation.
2	The model only evaluates areas accessible to fish. Areas landward of hard armoring automatically receive ovarall habitat value of 0 and are not evaluated here.	This is a yes no scenario for hard armoring and is considered automatically in the HEA. The habitat value for all areas rendered inaccessible by hard armoring is set to 0.	0.45	1	1.00			1.00
Substrate/Sediment Quality (physical) and Quantity: Active Erosion					shoreline length in feet			shoreline length in feet			Prosser et al., 2018
3a	Evaluation of active erosion depending on the typ of armoring. While the process of active erosion in response to shoreline armoring is well established (Prosser et al.,2018), specific effects may vary with key physical parameters including beach slope and location of armoring (Detheir et al, 2016). The type of shoreline armoring can affect the reflective wave rgime and resulting local coarsening of substrate and lowering of beach grade. steeper and coarser-grained beaches (Nordstrom, 20014, Detheir et al., 2016)	How many linear feet of the existing or proposed shoreline is natural, soft, or hybrid?	0.1	1.00	0	0.000		100	1.000		F, C, M		For hybrid and soft: Develop assessment of potential small impact in terms of reducing lanward migration of shoreline.
3b		How many linear feet of the existing or proposed armoring that is "Rock"?		0.20	100	0.200		0	0.000		F, C, M
3c		How many linear feet of the existing or proposed armoring that is "Concrete or Sheetpile"?		0	0	0.000	0.20	0	0.000	1.00	F, C, M
Substrate/Sediment Quality (physical) and Quantity
4a	We are evlauating wether to include different value associated with different substrate types. Read lit from Janson Toft, request input from Tribes, WDFW, DNR.
4b	Evaluation of effect of hard armoring on local sediment supply. At any beach, there is input of some amount of sediment and landward migration of shorline (passive erosion caused by sealevel rise (Dethier et al., 2016)). Hard armoring prevents both, the iput of sediment from upland sources to the bach and any lanward migration of the beach. Different from hard armoring, natural, soft, and hybrid shoreline allows for or includes uslope supply of sediment as well as some landward shorline migration. In front of hard armoring, we assume beach narrowing and reduction in quality. That this effect of armoring on sediment quality and quantity is especially severe at bluff backed beaches is captured in the credit factors.		0.15	1.000		0.500	0.50		1.000	1.00		Full value of 1 assigned for natural, soft, and hybrid. Vallue assigned for hard armoring 0.5. Effect of armoring seems to be most detrimental in supply reaches and in areas with high existing armoring. Consider for next version changing impact to sediment determination from armoring to 1) apply to supply reaches, only, 2) apply to areas with existing armoring above X percent (Detheir). Use DOE publication "Mapping Bluffs and Beaches of PS to Quantify Sediment Supply" 18-06-008
Vegetation
5a	Vegetation Condition, select one: 1) Bulkhead Removal At locations with existing shorline armoring it is often difficult to determine whether any salmarsh vegetation will re-establish after removal of hard armoring. Thus, unless the surrounding location gives strong indication for vegetation establishment, select 5d as the default after condition when evaluating bulkhead removal. 2) Bulkhead replacement select 5d (no vegetation) for before and after.	Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support saltmarsh vegetation is covered with >60% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Distichlis sp.	0.1	1.00	No	0.00		No	0.00		M, F, C	If saltmash vegetation can't be expected then this indicator will not be considered and other indicators will together account for 100 % of habitat quality. See cell H 52. We set the percent influence of this habitat parameter at just 5% as the parameter summary score is determined without taking the area where saltmarch veg would grow into consideration. Other than for conservation banks where monitoring occurs, it seemed too difficult to estimate the area where saltmarsh veg would grow. Thus, to scale the vegetation parameter in comparison to the others parameters, it seemed riget to set the percent influence very low.
5b		Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support salmarsh vegetation is covered with >30% and <60% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Disticilis sp.		0.75	No	0.00		No	0.00		M, F, C
5c		Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support salmarsh vegetation is covered with >5% and < 30% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Disticilis sp..		0.50	No	0.00		No	0.00
5d		Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support salmarsh vegetation is covered with <5% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Disticilis sp..		0.25	Yes	0.25	0.25	Yes	0.25	0.25
Chemical Water and Sediment Quality
6a	Evaluate change in contaminants in water quality and sediment quality condition. Select one condition for before and after. Use medium for default.	Good	0.1	1.00	No	0.00		No	0.00		Water Quality	For the removal of any structure containing AZCA-treated wood use the Conservation Calculator to enter tons of creosote to be removed. The Conservation Calculator includes standard assumptions for creosote and allows for consistent assessment.
6b		Medium		0.50	No	0.00		No	0.00		Water Quality
6c		Poor		0.00	Yes	0.00	0.00	Yes	0.00	0.00	Water Quality
Habitat Value without discounting to max per zone			1			NHV	0.570		NHV	0.825
DSAYs for USZ 1									NHV USZ 1	0.49	NHV times max CF
DSAYs for USZ 2
Sum DSAYs Shoreline Stab USZ		0.00000

PickLIsts

PickLIst	PickLIst	Picklist
Yes	0	Yes
No	1	NA
NA	2
	3
	4
	5
	6
	7

shorel Stabiliz USZ

Update with 8/3 to 8/5 updates - see calculator. Create separate Tabs for installation and removal.
Enter new or to be newly installed (for replacements or setbacks) armoring here.
Nearshore Habitat Value Determination Model: Upper Shore Zone Habitat Value Determination
The Upper Shore Zone encompassess the area between HAT and +5 MLLW. This model determines the habitat values for before and after a change occurs, restoration or degradation, for the entire upper shore zone. Depending on the project, only part of this area is the affected area for which habitats values should be determined. The NHVM and HEA are based on evaluating differenced between before and after conditions. If areas don't experiance a change in conditions, they can be excluded. For example, if a new overwater structure is installed waterward of an existing bulkhead, the area between HAT the bulkhead does not need to be included.
If several actions occur at one site, evaluate shoreline armoring effects here and OWS and boat ramp effects in the Shade and Structure Im USZ tab.
Yellow cells are to fill in.
Grey cells contain essential questions
Gree cells contain additional explanations
Orange cells contain informational summary values
Light blue cells contain factors from Shade Imp tab
Purple Cells indicate BPJ reduction/credit factors
A 1. General Project Factors
	Question	Input Format	User Entry	Notes
Duration	Are the project impacts permanent?	Yes/No	No	If project impacts or benefits are not permanent make sure to select NO.
	If temporary enter years of project impact.	Temp Impact Years	50	Enter number of years project will exist (design life) if other than permanent. Leave blank if permanent. Use 50 years for all hard shoreline armoring
Time Lag	Years Until Full Functioning Habitat	Years	1	If purchasing credits through a mitigation bank, enter 1. If calculating for permittee responsible mitigation, enter how many years after the impact full function of mitigation would be achieved. For restoration, the default for achieving full function after restoration in the nearshore marine environment is 3 years. The lowest possible value is 1. Do not enter values less than 1.
	Maximum Habitat Value for USZ 1		0.6	USZ 1 is MHHW to HAT
	Maximum Habitat Value for USZ 2		0.9	USZ 2 is +5 MLLW to MHHW
A 2. General Project Factors for Shoreline stabilization and restoration projects
Don't fill out entry block A2. unless you are evaluating changes in shoreline stabilization.
	Automatic Area Calculations for Upper Shore Zone 1 & 2, FYI only, no user input!
		Linear feet Before	Linear feet After	SQFT waterward in respective USZ Before	Acres Before	SQFT waterward in respective USZ after	Acres After
	Length (along shoreline) of area affected in the long term by project. For installation of shoreline armoring that is the length of the armoring.	100.00	100.00
USZ1	Width of Upper Shore Zone 1 [ft slope distance]	25.00	25.00	2,500.00	0.057
USZ1	Width of Upper Shore Zone 1 [ft slope distance] waterward of hard shoreline armoring.	25.00	0.00	2,500.00	0.057	0.000	0.000
USZ2	Width of Upper Shore Zone 2 [ft slope distance]	30.00	30.00	3,000.00	0.069
USZ2	Width of Upper Shore Zone 2 [ft slope distance] waterward of hard shoreline armoring	30.00	30.00	3,000.00	0.069	3,000.00	0.069

	Site Conditions			Notes
	For Shoreline Stabilization	Before	After
	Length of shoreline to be altered [ft] - same for before and after	100.00			Intern Project: It would be helpful to design a graphic that represents the project elevations in relationship to armoring.
A	For natural shoreline and soft shore treatments: Distance of HAT to MHHW [ft slope distance]. For hard armoring leave empty and fill out B.	25.00		Depending on soft shore or hard shore fill in A or B, HAT in PS varies between approx. 9 ft MLLW in Dungeness and 17 ft MLLW in Olympia.
B	For hard shoreline armoring: Distance between HAT and shoreline treatment [ft slope distance]		25.00
C	Average slope distance waterward of hard armoring where armoring affects evaluated elements: wrack, sediment starvation/active erosion, passive erosion. The max distance would be MHHW to +5 MLLW.	30.00		Depending on soft shore or hard shore fill in A or D1 through D3
D1	Select "YES" if hard shoreline armoring is at or waterward of MHHW. Enter "NA" for natural, soft, or hybrid condition.	NA	Yes
D2	Distance between MHHW and shoreline treatment [ft slope distance]		0.00	This is similar to relative encroachment approache in Dethier et al. 2016
D3	Average slope distance waterward of hard armoring where armoring affects evaluated elements: wrack, sediment starvation/active erosion, passive erosion. The max distance would be MHHW to +5 MLLW.		30.00	This areal extent of effects is different for wrack, sediment corsening, beach lowering, and sediment supply/ beach shortening. While effects on wrack usually are limited to within 15 feet (pers com Dethier), the effect of armoring on beach width and sediment characteristics are still being investigated. Using 30 feet is our attempt to describe the area with the most noticable effects.
	Shoreline slope distances check			These cell display a waring if the before and after distances don't add up to the same distance between HAT and + 5 MLLW
	The habitat value for areas landward of hard armoring is automatically set to 0 to reflect a complete loss of access and sediment supply. If such areas are planted with riparian vegetation the value as riparian habitat can reflected in the riparian tab. For such situations impervious surface should be selected as the before habitat condition in the riparian tab.
B. Habitat Evaluation USZ 1&2

Before

After

Only areas waterward of hard armoring that are accessilbe to fish are evaluated. Areas landward of hard armoring automatically receive a habitat value of 0.

Indicator of Physical Habitat/ Physical and Biological Features

Rating Questions

Percent Influence of Indicator on Habitat Value

Scores 0 to 1

Site Condition

Category specific Score

Indicator Specific Summary Score

Site Condition

Category specific Score

Indicator Specific Summary Score

Elements of Nearshore Marine PCEs addressed

Notes

Shoreline Complexity: Food and Cover (Beach Logs and Wrack)

Habitat Function from large wood and/or beach wrack. Evaluate how much beach wrack and wood are present and what function they provides to site. (Sobocinski et al 2010; Heerhartz et al. 2014, 2016; Strain et al. 2018)

Beach logs and wrack line provide full function. Chose this option for hybrid and soft armoring and natural shoreline.

0.1

Yes

1.00

0.00

F,C

Shoreline complexity including shallow-sloped banks with rack and beach logs as well as undercut banks provide food and cover to juvenile salmonids.

Beach logs and wrack line provide medium function. Choose this option for hard armoring at or above MHHW.

0.5

0.00

Yes

0.50

Beach logs provide little to no function. Choose this option for shoreline armoring below MHHW.

0.00

1.00

0.00

0.50

Shallow Water Habitat/ Unobstructed migratory Corridor

For the nearshore structures this model evaluates, the juvenile migratory corridor can be either not availiable, unobstructed, or partially impacted. For situations where the habitat is not availiable (behind hard armoring or taken up by 3D structures including piles and jetties) the after HV is set to 0. For OWS the migratorry corridor is still availiable, but obstructed and impacted based on factors including grating and elevation.

The model only evaluates areas accessible to fish. Areas landward of hard armoring automatically receive ovarall habitat value of 0 and are not evaluated here.

This is a yes no scenario for hard armoring and is considered automatically in the HEA. The habitat value for all areas rendered inaccessible by hard armoring is set to 0.

0.45

1.00

Substrate/Sediment Quality (physical) and Quantity: Active Erosion

shoreline length in feet

Prosser et al., 2018

For hybrid and soft: Develop assessment of potential small impact in terms of reducing lanward migration of shoreline.

Evaluation of active erosion depending on the typ of armoring. While the process of active erosion in response to shoreline armoring is well established (Prosser et al.,2018), specific effects may vary with key physical parameters including beach slope and location of armoring (Detheir et al, 2016). The type of shoreline armoring can affect the reflective wave rgime and resulting local coarsening of substrate and lowering of beach grade. (Nordstrom, 20014, Detheir et al., 2016)

How many linear feet of the existing or proposed shoreline is natural, soft, or hybrid?

0.1

1.00

100

1.000

0.000

F, C, M

How many linear feet of the existing or proposed armoring that is "Rock"?

0.20

0.000

F, C, M

How many linear feet of the existing or proposed armoring that is "Concrete or Sheetpile"?

0.000

1.00

100

0.000

0.00

F, C, M

Substrate/Sediment Quality (physical) and Quantity

Should we include different value associated with different substrate types? Read lit from Janson Toft - potential project for Christinal I

Evaluation of effect of hard armoring on local sediment supply. At any beach, there is input of some amount of sediment and landward migration of shorline (passive erosion caused by sealevel rise (Dethier et al., 2016)). Hard armoring prevents both, the iput of sediment from upland sources to the bach and any lanward migration of the beach. Different from hard armoring, natural, soft, and hybrid shoreline allows for or includes uslope supply of sediment as well as some landward shorline migration. In front of hard armoring, we assume beach narrowing and reduction in quality. That this effect of armoring on sediment quality and quantity is especially severe at bluff backed beaches is captured in the credit factors.

0.15

1.000

1.00

0.500

0.50

Full value of 1 assigned for natural, soft, and hybrid. Vallue assigned for hard armoring .0.5. Effect of armoring is most detrimental in supply reaches. Consider changing impact to sediment determination from armoring to be most severe at supply reaches. Use DOE publication "Mapping Bluffs and Beaches of PS to Quantify Sediment Supply" 18-06-008

Vegetation

Vegetation Condition, select one

Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support saltmarsh vegetation is covered with >60% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Distichlis sp.

0.1

1.00

0.00

M, F, C

Intertidal vegetation can be expected intermittently at low wave energy beaches. Consider refining model to assess impacts/benefits separately for different wave regiemes and/or geomorphologies.

Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support salmarsh vegetation is covered with >30% and <60% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Disticilis sp.

0.75

0.00

M, F, C

Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support salmarsh vegetation is covered with >5% and < 30% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Disticilis sp..

0.50

0.00

Select “Yes” if area with elevation that would support salmarsh vegetation is covered with <5% of upper intertidal vegetation including macro algae and saltmarsh vegetation like Salicornia sp. and Disticilis sp..

0.25

Yes

0.25

Yes

0.25

Chemical Water and Sediment Quality

Evaluate change in contaminants in water quality and sediment quality condition. Select one condition for before and after. Use medium for default.

Good

0.1

1.00

0.00

Water Quality

For the installation of any structure containing AZCA-treated wood that is likely to leach and chip, apply a one category (e.g. from medium to poor for installation of treated wood bulkhead) reduction of WQ.

Medium

0.50

Yes

0.50

Yes

0.50

Water Quality

Poor

0.00

0.50

0.00

0.50

Water Quality

Habitat Value without discounting to max per zone

NHV

0.875

NHV

0.650

C. Credit/Debit Factors Multipliers

Credit factors apply to the entire elevation polygon, they do not reflect a before after change. They are a function of site inherint conditions.

Credit/Debit Factors

Enter Yes/No

Is the project located within 5 miles of a Major Estuary Zone? (see Corps webpage for zone mapping)

1.0

Major Estuary Zone Maps

Is the project is located within a pocket estuary?

1.0

Washington State Coastal Atlas

Is there observed (as mapped or determined by WDFW) sand lance or surf smelt spawning on the project site?

1.0

WDFW Forage Fish Spawning Map

Is the project located at a feeder bluff?

1.0

Coastal Atlas Map

Is the project located within the same drift cell and updrift of forage fish spawning habitat?

1.0

WDFW Forage Fish Spawning Map

Uncertainty factor for new projects

1.0

Summary Credit/Debit Factor

DSAYs for USZ 1

-0.77526

DSAYs for USZ 2

-0.35883

Sum DSAYs Shoreline Stab USZ

-1.13409

Conservation Points

-113.40943

Inputs for Overwater Structures
You do not need to fill out this tab if your USZ pre- AND post-project area are not impacted by OWS. Just make shure that blue cells in the USZ tab show a 1.
Yellow cells are to fill in.
Grey cells contain essential questions
Gree cells contain additional explanations
Orange cells contain informational summary values

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Jul 20, 2021.