NFFO70002102420 SOW (RFQ).docx

STATEMENT OF WORK

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

WEST COAST REGION

Refine and Expand Habitat Equivalency Analysis Models for Credit Calculation under the Endangered Species Act: Estuary Model

NF-FO7000-21-02420

A. Background: In Puget Sound, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) uses the Puget Sound Conservation Calculator (available on NOAAs web page[footnoteRef:1]) to aid in determining impacts and benefits related to development and restoration actions in the nearshore. More information about the Conservation Calculator, the underlying models (Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) and the Nearshore Habitat Values Model), and its use with section 7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be found on NMFS’ web page. Currently, the Conservation Calculator allows for assessing a limited range of development and habitat improvement actions in the nearshore including the construction of overwater structures, shoreline armoring, and boat ramps. The refinement of this model, and development of future modules are the subject of this statement of work.

NMFS developed a draft Puget Sound Estuarine Habitat Evaluation model. The draft concept is summarized below and the draft Excel model is also attached. This draft model provides habitat values of estuarine habitat as input parameters to HEA. Habitat Equivalency Analysis then provides the quantification of changes to estuarine habitat in a common habitat currency called Discounted Service Acre Years (DSAYs). Habitat Equivalency Analysis is an established model. The draft Puget Sound Estuarine Habitat Evaluation model needs refinement which is the scope of this proposal.

[1: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/habitat-conservation/puget-sound-nearshore-habitat-conservation-calculator]

Model Conceptual Goals:

· The model is applicable to all embayments (following Shipman 2008 and McBride et al. 2009) as well as large river deltas from the head of tide to the offshore extent of Submerged aquatic vegetation.

· The draft Puget Sound Estuarine Habitat Evaluation Model will be an Excel spreadsheet model to allow for maximum transparency, and will be as simple as possible, including only the most relevant and influential factors, while meeting the requirements below.

· To the greatest degree possible, the model will be based on evidence of juvenile salmonid survival, growth, inundation duration, residence time, or other quantitative parameters that would drive a population lifecycle model.

· The model is based on dividing a habitat into different elevation zones following Iadanza (2001).

· For each elevation zone, the model will assign a maximum habitat value based on the duration of access and biological importance (could be based on productivity) to fish. Best available science (BAS) and if necessary expert opinion will be used to evaluate importance to fish. Habitat values in HEA range from 0 to 1.

· Within each elevation zone, the most relevant physical and biological features (PBF) (50 CFR 424.12) of critical habitat will be evaluated to determine the proportion of maximum habitat value provided by that zone.

· The percent influence of each PBF (for example, connectivity/access, complexity/channel network, cover/productivity, water quality) on the overall habitat value will be determined via BAS and where necessary expert opinion.

· Evaluation of each PBF currently will be semi quantitative, utilizing different value bins (high medium low or more depending on PBF) and BAS.

· A separate section or worksheet will be used to evaluate credit factors. Credit/debit factors are applied as the last step in the HEA to adjust DSAY values based on considerations from recovery plans or to account for sea level rise or other factors affecting habitat services over time. Their magnitude is based on BAS and where necessary Best Professional Judgement.

· The model should be applicable to varied habitat conditions including estuaries, complex natural embayment landscapes, and account for deviation from natural habitat structure and pattern. The model should be applicable across a range of levels of freshwater influence, from cuspate foreland lagoons with no freshwater input, to river dominated marshes with extensive freshwater tidal habitats.

· The model will not include the evaluation of industrial developments like port facilities or superfund sites. A calculator based on the Puget Sound Estuarine Habitat Evaluation model or connected to it for industrial facilities including Ports will be developed separately in cooperation with users.

· The model will be consistent with, or systematically improve upon the existing nearshore habitat value model generated for beaches[footnoteRef:2]. [2: The model is included in background tabs of the Conservation Calculator availiable at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/habitat-conservation/puget-sound-nearshore-habitat-conservation-calculator

· The model should be consistent with the river delta/major estuary and pocket estuary indicator approach being developed by the Puget Sound Partnership as much as possible at the time of contract fulfillment.

· The model should be consistent with the 5-year habitat status and trends monitoring methods being implemented by the NW Fisheries Science Center.

B. Objectives: NMFS intends for the Puget Sound Estuarine Habitat Evaluation model to serve together with HEA as a regulatory tool to evaluate the relative value of restoration projects as well as development impacts to a range of estuarine habitat functions (saltwater tidally influenced & freshwater tidally influenced). We seek to evaluate changes to the quality of the estuarine component of Puget Sound Chinook critical habitat and their likely impacts to salmon. Project types we seek to evaluate with the Puget Sound Estuarine Habitat Evaluation include but are not limited to dike setbacks and tidal habitat restoration including re-establishment of tidal channel networks, dike breaches that open access to previously disconnected (pocket-) estuaries, new dike construction, dike repair, and tide gate and culvert installation or replacements. The model must be based on BAS.

Project input data for the model must be restricted to what NMFS usually receives with biological evaluations for such project types including approximately 60% design plans including grading plans and planting plans, general descriptions, JARPA, and HPAs. Publically available data, such as GIS data, are also available for data input variables. Model users include agency personnel and biological consultants. The model input variables, variable associations, and equations must be transparent so that a user can view and with effort and interest understand the background of the model.

C. Scope:

This contract supports the quantification of the impacts and benefits related to development and restoration actions of Puget Sound estuaries up to the upper extent of tidal influence.

D. Tasks:

1. Develop Draft Framework and Draft Synthesis of Best Available Science- the consultant will review the existing draft Estuarine model worksheet (attached) and the Conservation Calculator that includes the Nearshore Habitat Value Model in background tabs (available on NOAAs web page[footnoteRef:3]), PBFs (50 CFR 424.12) and other resources that define recovery requirements, or are described above in the model conceptual goals. From these resources and following a work session with NMFS staff, the consultant will identify likely elevation zones[footnoteRef:4] (corresponding to individual rating tabs in the spreadsheet), potential special habitat types, the effects of landscape position, PBFs (parameters ranked to evaluate habitat) that affect habitat services among zones, and likely factors not captured by habitat service value that will need to be considered through credit factors or other adjustments. The consultant will propose method to determine weight of each PBF/parameter in determining the habitat value. The framework will define the spreadsheet tabs, evaluation sections of the model, describe the likely scoring system, and propose credit factors.

The consultant will provide an outline of draft framework and BAS synthesis to NMFS and the science advisory group (SAG). The consultant will work with the SAG on review of the draft framework for completeness and gaps. The consultant will base the draft framework on the draft best available science (BAS) synthesis (see Task 3). The consultant will revise the draft framework to incorporate NMFS and SAG comments. [3: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/habitat-conservation/puget-sound-nearshore-habitat-conservation-calculator] [4: The underlying concept is that elevation correlates with inundation and duration for which a habitat is available to juvenile salmonids. Elevation thus can serve as a basis for defining maximum habitat values for each elevation. Elevation (and salinity) also determine vegetation type. If there are different productivity values during salmonid rearing times that can be associated with the different elevation bands/vegetation types, productivity, too, could inform the maximum habitat value.

2. Establish Science Advisory Group - The contractor will acquire the services of no less than four individuals with specialized scientific technical expertise in salmonid use of estuaries and embayments. The function of the science advisory group (SAG) is to 1) identify data and reports that provide BAS to inform model parameters, 2) review the draft framework to then, 3) identify important factors affecting habitat service provision either broadly or in specific locations that are not captured by the framework and HEA model. The advisory group may be asked to participate in structured activities to elicit the relative importance of factors on habitat services based on best professional judgement. The SAG is anticipated to provide written independent critique of model logic or weight of evidence. Science advisors will not be expected or relied upon to make decisions about quantitative values for model parameters.

The consultant will provide NMFS a draft list of candidates. NMFS may remove candidates that don’t have sufficient expertise. Then a proposed final list of willing participants for approval.

3. Complete Best Available Science Synthesis - The framework review by the SAG (see Task 1&2) will include recommendations for studies or publications that should be examined in finalizing the initial synthesis of BAS. The consultant will complete a literature review to identify additional studies and reports that inform the draft framework, including recommendations of the SAG. In the process of review, the consultant will identify any additional parameters that were not included in the draft framework but which appear to be important in determining estuarine habitat service provision. The target use for this model is regulatory. For each elevation, include only the top 5 to 15 most important input parameters that can be reasonably easily obtained by users.

The BAS synthesis will include considerations for how to consider sea level rise in the context of habitat service value and HEA time-dependant parameters. The BAS synthesis will include an assessment of time to full function for estuarine habitat. The final product from BAS synthesis should not be a narrative report, but most likely an annotated bibliography in spreadsheet format. The BAS synthesis will be structured to directly support model creation, will be short and concise, and will be easy to use, share, and update over time with any institution or user.

4. Produce & Revise Draft Spreadsheet Model and Draft Rationale - The consultant will produce a draft embayment and estuary spreadsheet habitat value model. The draft model will define elevation zones, potential special habitats, selected most important PBFs, PBF criteria and scoring categories, weighing of each PBF, and credit factors. It will result in generation of habitat service values that can be used in HEA. The draft model will include a list of credit factors, credit factor criteria, and a method of integrating credit factors into a final credit factor for a given site. The contractor will provide a written summary notes of how SAG information was included in draft spreadsheet model. Also, the consultant will identify a list of all factors identified during BAS research and in science advisory work that have not been incorporated into PBFs, credit factors used in the draft model, or other model aspects.

The draft model will be accompanied by a rough draft narrative document (rationale) that uses the BAS synthesis to briefly justify each model parameter and outline where expert opinion was used. The language will be concise; it does not need to be a formatted report but may be a narrative style modeled after that used in Biological Opinions or other regulatory documents.

The consultant will share the draft model and draft rationale with NMFS and the SAG. The consultant will allow time for SAG and NMFS review, critique, and discussion on the draft model and rationale. The consultant will revise the model and rationale to incorporate input agreed upon in discussion with NMFS.

5. Test Model - The consultant will complete a HEA analysis on three sites in Puget Sound (Blue Heron Conservation Bank, Camano Island Conservation Bank, and one other to be determined). That HEA will be based on the draft model. NMFS will provide source materials to be used in testing the model. The consultant will generate a HEA output using the draft spreadsheet based on the given project description. Summarize challenges in using the model and propose solutions.

6. Finalize Model, Rationale, and User Guide - following NMFS feedback from the model test, the consultant will complete a final pleasingly formatted and easy to use version of the model in an Excel spreadsheet. The consultant will provide a final rationale for the model parameters, citing BAS, and based on the revised draft rationale. This report will include the independent scientific critique from the SAG and identify pathways for potential further model improvement.

The consultant will also produce a user manual for the model and a simple screen sharing video that explains a) how to gather the necessary inputs and project documentation, b) put project data into the model, c) check for common errors, and d) report on model outputs.

Some anticipated meetings may be combined among tasks.

There will be some overlap of task completion. For example establishment of the science advisory group needs to commence prior to completion of Task 1: Develop Draft Framework.

E. Deliverables:

· Task 1:

Schedule and organize a minimum of one day work session with NMFS.

Develop and email a draft model framework and draft best available science (BAS) synthesis to NMFS. The draft model framework needs to include: elevation zones and potential special habitat types, proposed PBF/evaluation parameters for each elevation zone, method to determine weight of each PBF/parameter in determining the habitat value draft evaluation criteria, proposed credit factors.

Email the draft framework and draft BAS to NMFS and SAG; schedule feedback meeting. Request written comments of SAG. Revise the draft model framework based on NMFS and SAG comments and resubmit the revised framework to NMFS. Include short documentation of how SAG and NMFS comments were addressed.

· Task 2: Provide NMFS POC with draft list of candidates for SAG. Provide NMFS with a final list of at least 4 willing participants. Share SAG critique of draft framework with NMFS.

· Task 3: Revise and complete draft BAS synthesis (annotated bibliography) (see Task 1) that supports model creation including selection of elevation zones or special habitat types, selection of each model parameter for each proposed elevation or special habitat, and proposed approach to inclusion of sea level rise.

· Task 4: Develop and e-mail to NMFS a draft embayment and estuary spreadsheet habitat value model and draft rationale. Provide written summary notes of how SAG information was included in draft model. Provide a list of all factors identified during BAS research and in SAG work that have not been incorporated into PBFs, credit factors, or other model aspects.

Seek review from NMFS and SAG. SAG critique may be solicited in written format or via a workshop. Schedule at least one meeting for feedback discussion with NMFS.

Email revised model and narrative scientific rationale to NMFS.

· Task 5: Email HEA outputs for three example projects (Blue Heron Conservation Bank, Camano Island Conservation Bank, and one other to be determined) to NMFS using the draft spreadsheet. Share with NMFS challenges in model use and proposed solutions.

· Task 6: Email to NMFS: final model, scientific rationale, user manual, and screen sharing video.

· Timing: If award of contract occurs later than August 31, the completion dates may be adjusted using the below listed completion dates as days after contract award.

· Deliverables shall be emailed to Stephanie.Ehinger@noaa.gov

F. Period of Performance: September 30, 2021 through April 15, 2022

G. Place of Performance: Oregon or Washington State

H. Education/Experience Required:

· Expert knowledge in Puget Sound Estuarine Science in particular embayment and estuary restoration recovery and recent research and models related to estuary structure, processes and functions.

· Expert knowledge of recent Puget Sound research in juvenile salmonid embayment and estuary habitat use

· Expert knowledge in MS Excel.

· Knowledge in Habitat Equivalency Analysis and ecological modeling.

· Knowledge in user interface design.