EIR: Appendix C. Habitat Valuation Determination, Modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) Analysis •
APPENDIX C.
HABITAT VALUATION DETERMINATION
• MODIFIED HABITAT EVALUATION PROCEEDURE (HEP) ANALYSIS
FOR THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEASIBILITY STUDY
JUNE 2000
a
• Habitat Valuation Analysis for Environmental Restoration Palos Verdes Feasibility Study
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The Corps' guidance for ecosystem restoration in the Civil Works Program is provided in
Engineer Circular (EC) 1005-2-210. The purpose of the guidance is to assure that civil work
investments in ecosystem restoration have the intended beneficial effects, are consistent with
Administration policy, and will be conducted in the most cost effective manner.
This guidance requires ecosystem outputs of proposed alternatives of a feasibility study be
subjected to a detailed cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis (see parags. 13.b.(1) and
(20)). The primary purpose being to allow explicit comparison of the additional cost and
additional outputs associated with the alternatives. To perform this type of analysis, it is
necessary that the environmental outputs be based on some quantifiable unit (e.g., Habitat Units,
fisherman-days, visitor use days). This allows determination of the most cost-effective restoration
option or combination of options that best meet the restoration goals.
The following analysis uses the Marine Habitat Valuation Method developed by Bond et al,
(1999) which was utilized by Pondella and Stephens (1998) (see Appendix C-1, following) to
quantitatively characterize the marine biological values of habitat in the Study Area.
2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND RESTORATION
OPPORTUNITIES
•
2.1 Habitat loss and degradation
Prior to the 1950's, subtidal rocky reef areas and many intertidal pools were present along the
shore and in the nearshore area from Abalone Cove, around Portuguese Point and Inspiration
Point, and through Portuguese Bend to Bunker Point. These are now silted and smothered to a
lesser or greater degree by landslide-generated sediment. Portuguese Bend supported a rich and
diverse marine flora and fauna typical of Southern California intertidal and subtidal communities.
The unaffected rocky reefs adjacent to Portuguese Bend (e.g., upcoast at Palos Verdes Point)
support a extremely productive kelp forest community; they serve as a graphic reminder of the
diverse biological community that is lost to the extensive sedimentation and turbidity caused by
the eroding landslide bluff. (See Wilson et al. 1980:85 & 90; Stephens, personal observations
cited in Pondella and Stephens 1998 [in Appendix Cl]; Stephens 1990: pg. C-2-1; and Pondella et
al. 1996:61;Bond et al. 1999:232& 235)
(For information on the historic kelp canopy coverage on the Palos Verdes Peninsula- see North
1983:150, Wilson et al. 1980:84; and Wilson and Togstad 1983:306. Also see the discussion of
the degradation and loss of natural rocky reef marine biological habitat in the Portuguese Bend
area in Section 2.1 of the DEIS. )
The near-constant turbidity plume and its associated water column impacts on marine biological
a c_i
resources are presumed to extend at least to the 30 foot isobath from Portuguese Bend to Whites
Point. This area of impact includes existing kelp beds at Bunker Point and kelp beds in the the
nearshore area from Bunker Point to Whites Point. As discussed in Section 5.1.1 of the DEIS,
excessive turbidity(i.e., decreased light penetration) is known to reduce the growth rates and
fertility of marine plants and reduce the survivability of marine plant's gametophytes. From
marine biological surveys performed in these areas, it is known that the quality of existing kelp
forest habitat downcoast of the landslide are degraded by the near-constant turbidity plume (see
Pondella et al. 1996:56-58 [in Appendix A] and Pondella and Stephens 1998 [in Appendix C1]).
2.2 Restoration goals.
The goal of the restoration effort is to eliminate the negative affects of sedimentation and turbidity
caused by the erosion of landslide-generated material at Portuguese Bend on subtidal rocky reef
habitat. By eliminating the source of sediment, the natural subtidal rocky reef is expected to be
uncovered by natural wave action and currents; also the subtidal rocky reef habitat is expected to
be re-exposed and re-colonized by marine plant and animal life like those occurring upcoast in the
unaffected areas of the peninsula(e.g., at Palos Verdes Point- see description at Section 4.2.2 of
the DEIS). Optimally, the goal is to allow a healthy kelp forest to re-established on the natural
rocky reef of the area.
Once Turbidity caused by landslide-generated sediment is eliminated, the quality of several
hundred acres of existing kelp forest habitat is expected to be improved by increasing the water
column clarity (see following discussion in Section 3.2). The habitat quality of existing kelp beds
•
downcoast, therefore, are expected to be restored to pre-landslide condition quality once
landslide-generated turbidity is eliminated. (For a discussion of impacts of turbidity on the
quality of kelp habitat, see Section 5.1.1 of the DEIS and Pondella et al. 1996:56-58 [in Appendix
A].)
3. EVALUATION METHOD USED
3.1. Background.
Through coordination with natural resources agencies (CDF&G,NN1FS, USF&WS), the
concensus was that a reasonable assessment of the potential benefits of with-verses without-
project conditions might be achieved by comparing the marine habitat of three sites in the Study
Area: Palos Verdes Point, Abalone Cove, and Portuguese Bend. The Portuguese Bend area,
which is adjacent to the most severe erosion and sedimentation, appears to have a depauparate
marine biological community. The upcoast area of Palos Verdes Point, which appears not be
affected by landslide-generated sediment and turbidity, has a hard rock/kelp assemblage of fishes,
invertebrates, and algae. Abalone Cove, which is located between these two sites, shows
intermediate effects of turbidity and sedimentation(see Pondella et al. 1996 [in Appendix A of the
DEIS]). It was felt that the habitat value of the sediment-laden Portuguese Bend area could serve
as an example of without-project conditions; the habitat value of Palos Verdes Point area might be
used as a reference site to predict the value of the area if all landslide-generated sediment and
•C-2
• turbidity could be stopped; and the habitat value of Abalone Cove could represent an intermediate
value.
After a concensus was reached among the Corps and the resource agencies, the Corps contracted
the Vantuna Research Group (VRG)to use the Habitat Valuation Determination Method
(hereafter, called the VRG Method) previously developed by VRG(see Bond et al,. 1999)to
quantitatively assess the relative habitat values of Portuguese Bend, Abalone Cove and Palos
Verdes Point. As stated, it is expected that these areas would serve as examples of with- and
without-project conditions expected in the Feasibility Study Area.
(Note that USFWS requested habitat modelers at U.S. Geological Survey to review the VRG
model. USGS' comments on the VRG model and VRG's response to those comments appears
behind Appendix Cl.)
The VRG method uses marine fish guilds in its valuation determination. The density
(abundance/area), fidelity (frequency of occurrence), and biomass (mean weight or length) from
data collected in the Study Area are the parameters used in the calculations. The product of
these parameters for each guild are calculated for sites. The sum of the products for a site allows
for a quantitative comparison of the three sites.
The results of the habitat valuation using the VRG method are discussed in detail in Appendix
Cl. Note that the analysis in Appendix CI builds on a previous analysis (Stephens et al. 1996)
performed to make a preliminary determination of relative habitat value.
The following modified-Habitat Evaluation Procedure (modified-HEP) analysis (see Section 3.2,
below) uses the values generated by the VRG Method (i.e., in Appendix C-1).
(Note that HEP is a habitat-based evaluation procedure; it is used to give a quantitative, numerical
value to biological resources of concern. HEP, developed by the USFWS [USFWS 1980], is a
formal process whereby tested habitat suitability models for certain species are used which directs
the measurement of certain habitat variables for the selected species (e.g., percent of canopy
cover, number of snag trees, stream temperature, percent ground cover, etc . . . )to obtain a
Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). This is then used to obtain a numerical rating of habitat units for
the selected species. A modified-HEP taylors the HEP process to a particular application and/or
to a certain level of effort desired by the user [Wakeley and O'Neil 1988]. )
3.2 Habitat Evaluation.
The habitat value calculated for Palos Verdes Point by the VRG Method (i.e., 5719 - see Table 1
of Appendix C1) was considered the value of high quality kelp habitat and, therefore, equivalent
to a"1.0" value in HEP. The habitat value of the other key locations (Portuguese Bend, Bunker
Point, and Bunker Pt.-Whites Pt.)were considered relative to the Palos Verdes Point habitat
value and a ratio of the two was used to generate a maximum habitat value in the"0.1 - 1.0"
• range normally used in a REP analysis. (For example, the maximum habitat value of Portuguese
C-3
Bend was calculated as 834/5719 = 0.15; Bunker Point was 2013/5719 = 0.35; etc...; see values
in Table 1 of Appendix Cl) The product of these habitat values and the area of key locations
gives habitat units, as traditionally done in HEP.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the calculations of Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs)
(provided in following Appendix)under without Project conditions.
Table 1. Existing Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) of the Study Area -
without the project. (Summary of Tables la-id. in the Appendix.)
Location AAHUs
Portuguese Bend 10.7
Bunker Point 57.1
Bunker Pt.-Whites Pt. 89.7
TOTAL 157.5
4. RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
Section 3 of the Draft EIS provides a detailed description of the proposed restoration alternatives
being considered. As mentioned in Section 3, the proposed restoration involves the construction
of an offshore dike(either 200 or 400 ft. from shore)which is designed to contain landslide-
generated sediment and turbidity. Hard rock reef is expected to be uncovered naturally (under
Alternatives 1 or 2) or mechanically (under alternatives la or 2a) and be re-colonized by marine
plants and animals. (The time necessary for the rocky reefs to uncover naturally is presented in
Table 7 of the DEIS.) Additionally, the quality of existing kelp beds impacted by near-constant
turbidity is expected to be improved as discussed in Section 2.2 above.
Tables 2- 5 summarize the AAHUs expected to be generated as a result of the proposed
restoration alternatives over the 50 year life of the project.
The difference in habitat value between Alternative 1 and 2 is the result of the larger area lost
behind the offshore dike. The benefits to areas ouside of the dike are the same, however.
C-4
• • •
Table 2. AAHUs in the Study Area expected to be Table 3. AAHUs in the Study Area expected to be
acheived under Alternative 1. (Summarized from Tables acheived under Alternative la. (Summarized from Tables
2a-d, 3, and 4a-c in the Appendix.) 2a, 3, 4a-c, and 6a-c in the Appendix.)
Location AAHUs Location AAHUs
Portuguese Bend - behind the dike 0.0 Portuguese Bend - behind the dike 0.0
Portuguese Bend (-10 to -20') +18.5 Portuguese Bend (-10 to -20') +22.2
Portuguese Bend (-20 to -30') +4.2' Portuguese Bend (-20 to -30') +27.0'
Portuguese Bend - Area 3 +9.6 Portuguese Bend - Area 3 +10.6
Bunker Point (Area 4) +161.9 Bunker Point (Area 4) +161.9
Bunker Pt- Whites Pt. (-10 to -20') +15.7 Bunker Pt - Whites Pt. (-10 to -20') +15,7
Bunker Pt- Whites Pt. (-20 to -30') -t6.6 Bunker Pt - Whites Pt. (-20 to -30') +6.6
Bunker Pt - Whites Pt.- kelp bed +193;8 Bunker Pt Whites Pt.- kelp bed +193.8,
Total +410.3 Total +437.8
('-5
Table 4. AAHUs in the Study Area expected to be ,acheived Table 5. AAHUs in the Study Area expected to be acheived
under Alternative 2. (Summarized from Tables 2c-d, 3, 4a- under Alternative 2a. (Summarized from Tables 5a, 6b,
c, and 5a-c in the Appendix.) and 7 in the Appendix.)
Location AAUUs Location AAUUs
Portuguese Bend behind the dike (1.0 Portuguese Bend - behind the dike 0.0
Portuguese Bend (-1(1 to -20') +10:4 Portuguese Bend (-'10 to -20') +12.5',
Portuguese Bend (-20 to -30') +4,2 Portuguese Bend (-20 to -30') +27.0
Portuguese Bend - Area 3 +9;6Portuguese Bend •- Area 3 +10.6
Bunker Point (Area 4) +161.9 Bunker Point (Area 4) +161.9
Bunker Pt - Whites Pt; (-10 to -20') +15.7 Bunker Pt - Whites 1't: (-10 to -20') +15,7
Bunker Pt Whites Pt (20 to -30')_ +o.6 Bunker Pt VIhites Pt. (-20 to .30') +6.6'
Bunker Pt- Whites Pt.- kelp bed +1918 Bunker Pt Whites 1't. kelp bed +193.8
Total +4012 Total +428.1
C-6
• . S
The net gain in habitat units from the nearshore and offshore dikes are sumarized in Table 6. The
loss of habitat behind either dike is expected to be offset by the restored habitat value of the
immediate Portuguese Bend area alone. When added to the additional benefits expected from: 1)
eliminating turbidity impacts at Bunker Point and the Bunker Point to Whites Point area, and 2)
re-exposing hard rock reef at Portuguese Bend and nearshore areas downcost of Bunker Point,
the beneficial impact (i.e., positive gain in habitat units)is expected to be significant.
Table 6. Net gain in Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs)- with-Project verses
without-Project (Compare Tables 1-5).
Future Future w/o Change in
Location w/Project Project AAHUs'
Portuguese Bend (Alt.l) 32.3 10 7 +21.6 •
Portuguese Bend(Alt s la) 59.8 :10,7 +49.1
Portuguese Bend(Alt 2) 24.2 10.7 +13.5
Portuguese Bend(Alt 2a) 50.1 10.7 +39.4
Bunker Pointe 161.9 57.1 +104.8
. Bunker Point Whites Pt' 216.1 89.7 +126.4
'Future w/Proj. -Future w/o Project.
2AAHUs for this area is the same for all action alternatives
The total positive net gain are as follows:
Alternative 1 - 252.8 AAHUs (21.6 + 104.8 + 126.4)
Alternative la- 280.3 AAHUs (49.1 + 104.8 + 126.4)
Alternative 2 - 244.7 AAHUs (13.5 + 104.8 + 126.4)
Alternative 2a - 270.6 AAHUs (39.4 + 104.8 + 126.4).
5. RECOMMENDED RESTORATION PLAN
5.1 Cost comparisons of alternatives by environmental output.
The initial cost and cost of future Operations and Mintenance (O&M) are presented in Table 7,
below. The average annual cost per habitat unit for each alternative is presented in Table 8.
411
C7
Table 7. Average annual cost of initial construction and future Operation and
Maintenance of the dike alternatives for the Rancho Palos Verdes Feasibility Study. IIP
(Based on information from Cost Engineering Appeddix, Appendix F of the Main Report).
ANNUAL COST
Alternative
Initial ($) 0 & M ($) Total ($)
1 <<1,240,532 <<66,378 2,384,000
Ii la II <<1,532,707 I <<66,378 I 2,697,000 II
2 1 <<1,703,m6 1 «01 2,137,8001
[I
I2a «i,984,332 <<01 I 2,439,100
}O'&M is negligible since no material rewires removal until 50
years.
Table 8. Total cost per Average Habitat Unit for feasible alternatives.
•
I� Alternative I Total Cost ($) I AAHUs1 I Cost/AAHU ($) II
If 11
1 I 2,384,000 I 249.4 9600
�I la I 2,697,000 I 276.9 ( 9700 II
II2 I 2,137,800 I 241.3 I 8900
2a 2,439,100 267.2 9100
I I
'Net gain in Average Annual Habitat Units- see section 4of
this Appendix.
Under the recommended plan(Alternative 2 -Proposed Action) a total of 241 AAHUs are
expected at a cost of$9600/AAHU. The recommended plan meets the restoration goal of
eliminating the adverse effects of sedimentation and turbidity on the nearshore marine
environment of the Portuguese Bend area.
C-8
5.2 Comparison with the estimated cost of artifical reef construction.
• In 1996 the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) provided the California Coastal
Commission(CCC) a cost estimate of building a low profile artificial reef. The request was made
by the CCC in an attempt to get an estimate of what the cost to an applicant might be should the
CCC require an applicant to construct a low profile artificial reef as mitigation for impacts to
existing natural rocky reef. Mr. Dennis Bedford (Coordinator of CDF&G's Artificial Reef
Program) provided an estimate of$18,847,755 to construct 100 acres of artificial reef with
coverage of 67% of the ocean bottom(Bedford, pers. corn.). This translates, of course, to a cost
of about $188,000/acre of reef habitat.
Although no directly comparable to this analysis, the cost estimate shows what regulatory
agencies might consider as being a "reasonable" cost for mitigating impacts to rock reef habitat in
the Southern California marine environment. (For comparison with the analysis of this appendix-
if you assume the 100 acres of artificial reef created would provide prime habitat at or near the
value of 1.0 HUs over the life of the restoration effort, you could estimate the cost
$188,000/AAHU.)
The cost for Alternative 2 ($2,697,000) involves restoring some 87 acres of hard rock reef and
eliminate turbidity impacts to 353 acres of existing reef-for a total of some 440 acres restored.
The cost per acre could be considered $6130/acre (or $9600/AAHU as mentioned in section 5.1,
above).
. 5.3 Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis of the values generated for this habitat valuation was conducted to
determine how"sensitive" the values generated were to the assumptions used. A"run" was
performed that assumed the maximum value of kelp restored would reach only a maximum value
of 0.8 (instead of the 1.0 maximum value assumed in the analysis).
Also, the rate of recovery(or restoration rate)was extended. In the valuation above, a kelp
forest is expected to be restored one year after the reef is completely uncovered. The existing
kelp beds are expected to completely recover 1 year after turbidity is eliminated. The sensitivity
analysis assumes recovery does not occur until 5 years after the reef is uncovered and/or 5 years
after turbidity is eliminated. The results of this analysis are on file, but it indicates that significant
Average Annual Habitat Units are generated, even under these assumptions.
An analysis was also performed using a maximum value of only 0.5 (instead of 1.0) for restored
kelp, and the recovery rate was reduced by 5 years as above. Under this assumption, without
verses with project conditions are not significantly different and minimal AAHUs are generated.
LITERATURE CITED
Bedford, D. Personal Communications. Conversation with Mr. Bedford on 18 November 1998
on the subject of the cost of artifical reef projects. Mr. Bedford provided a copy of the 4-
paged letter dated November 8, 1996 to the CCC via fax. Copy of the letter is on file.
C-9
Bond, A.B., J.S. Stephens, Jr., D.J. Pondella, II, M.J. Allen, and M. Helvey. 1999. A method for
•9 1 between estimating marine habitat values based on fish guilds, with comparisons sites in
the Southern California Bight. Marine Science 64:219-243. 1
North, W.J. 1983. The sea urchin problem. pp. 147-162. In. Bascom, W. (ed.) Symposium on
the Effects of Waste Disposal on Kelp Communities. Southern Calif. Coastal Water
Research Project and the Institute of Marine Resources of the Univ. of Calif. January 24-
25, 1983 at Scripps Inst. of Oceanography. La Jolla, Calif.
Pondella, D., II, P.Morris, and J. Stephens, Jr. 1996. Marine biolgical surveys of the coastal
zone off the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Prepared for the USACE, L.A. District. July
1996. 85pp_ (Provide as Appendix A,)
Pondella, D.J. II and J.S. Stephens, Jr. 1998. Habitat Valuation for proposed alternatives 1 and 2
for the Rancho Palos Verdes feasibility study. Developed for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. January 1998. (Provided as Appendix C.)
Stephens, J.S. 1990. The effect of the Portuguese Bend landslide upon the nearshore biota of
Palos Verdes. Technical Appendix C-2. In. The Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills,
California Reconnaissance Study. L.A. District Army Corps of Engineers. May 1992.
Stephens, Jr. J., D. Pondella, and P. Morris. 1996. Habitat value determination of the coastal
zone off the City of Rancho Palos Verdes based on habitat-specific assemblage data.
Prepared for USACE, L.A. District. September 1996. 3Opp.
Ct; hl R R
(Pd.) 1 993 T-Tahitat Pvali atinn nrnrerjnrpc wnrkhnnk Natinnal Frnlnov R Pcearch
c_erter. Fort c-1"s, rVnV. TVTSFW
1.1.
U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service. CUSFWS). 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures Workbook.
HEP Group. Western Energy and Land Use Team.
Wakeley, J.S. and L.J. O'Neil. 1988. Techniques to increase efficiency and reduce effort in
application of the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). Tech. Report EL-88-13. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Exper. Station. Vicksburg, MS. 52pp.
Wilson, K.C., A.J. Mearns, and J.J. Grant. 1980. Changes in kelp forest at Palos Verdes.
In. W. Bascom (ed.). Coastal water research project biennial report 197Q-1980 Sc Calif.
Coastal Water Research Project. Pages 77-91. Long Beach, CA.
Wilson, K.C. and H. Togstad. 1983. Storm caused changes in the Palos Verdes kelp
forest.. Pages 301-307. In. Bascom, W. (ed.) Symposium on the Effects of Waste
Disposal on Kelp Communities. Southern Calif. Coastal Water Research Project and the
Institute of Marine Resources of the Univ. of Calif January 24-25, 1983 at Scripps Inst.
of Oceanography. La Jolla, Calif.
C-10
• APPENDIX
CALCULATIONS OF ANNUAL AVERAGE HABITAT UNITS (AAHUs) FOR
LOCATIONS IN '1'k1I RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEASIBILITY STUDY AREA.
The following tables show how Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs)were calculated for this
Analysis. As mentioned in Section 3.1, a modified-HEP was used to make the habitat-based
evaluation of impacts. The AAHUs over the 50 year life of the project were calculated as
described in USFWS (1980:A-5-1) and Stiehl (1993:Chapter 3)using the HEP's "Form C". The
habitat values were derived as indicated in Section 3.2, except as discussed below.
Tables la- ld show the calculations of AAHUs for existing marine habitat (without the Project)
at Portuguese Bend, Bunker Point, and the Bunker Pt. -Whites Pt. Area..
Tables 2a- 2d show the calculations of AAHUs for the Portuguese Bend area with the nearshore
dike (Alternative 1). The time necessary for sediment to be naturally removed off of hard rock
was taken from Table 7 of the DEIS. It was assumed that by the time the area was completely
uncovered naturally, the habitat value might be at an intermediate level of "0.5". The following
year, the habitat value is estimated to reach an optimal level of "1.0".
Table 3 has the calculations for AAHUs for the Bunker Point Area (Area 4). The benefit to this
existing kelp bed is derived immediately from the elimination of the negative impacts to the kelp
• bed caused by the near-constant turbidity plume; this value is the same under either alternatives.
Tables 4a and 4b show the calculations of habitat benefits from uncovering sediment in the
nearshore areas from Bunker Point to Whites Point that results from either alternative. The time
necessary for sediment to naturally erode off the underlaying hard rock and the time necessary for
these areas to reach optimal habitat values are based on the same information/assumptions used in
Alternative 1 (Tables 2a and 2b).
Tables 5a- 5c show calculations of AAHUs for the Portuguese Bend area with the offshore dike
(Alternative 2). The time necessary for sediment to naturally erode off the underlaying hard rock
and the time necessary for these areas to reach optimal habitat values is based on the same
information/assumptions used previously in the analysis.
Tables 6 and 7 show calculations of AAHUs for the Portuguese Bend area with mechanical
removal of sediment from Areas 1 and/or 2 to expedite recovery.
•
Table la. Annual Average Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Portuguese Bend Area (i.e.,
Areas 1, 2, & 3) - WITHOUT PROJECT (No Action). (See Fig. 5.1 of the DEIS for
location of areas).
I Target Year I Habitat I Area Habitat Units ` I HUs bit I
IP
(TY) Value (acres) (HUs)" % Target Years
0 0.15 71 10.65
5 0.15 71 10.65 53.25
10 0.15 71 10.65 53.25
20 0.15 71 10.65 106.50
50 0.15 71 10.65 319.50
e I Sum of HUs: 532.50 I i
1 I I I AAHUs I
I I I (over 50 years) 10.65 1
Table lb. Annual Average Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Bunker Point Area (Areas 4) -
WITHOUT PROJECT (No Action).
Target Year Habitat Area Habitat Units HUs bit
(TY) Value (acres) (HUs) Target Years.
0 0.35 163 57.05
1 0.35 163 157.05 57.05
15 0.35 163 57.05 798.70 •
Jn n c
V.-J., ii c2
1VJ c^ nc
/.VJ 1996.75
1 I Sum of HUs: 2852.50
AAHUs
(over 50 years) I 57.05
Table lc. Annual Average Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Bunker Point Area to
Whites Point Area (Areas 5) - WITHOUT PROJECT (No Action).
Target Year Habitat Area Habitat Units ! HUs bit
(TY) Value (acres) (HUs) Target Years
1 00.39 230 89.70
11 10.39 1230 189.70 I 89.70 I
15 10.39 230 89.70 1255.80
50 0.39 230 89.70 3139.50
Sum of HUs: 4485.00
AAHUs
(over 50 years) 89.70
C-12
Table 2a. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Portuguese Bend Area
• behind the dike (Area 1) - Alternative 1 or la.
"Target Year Habitat Area Habitat Units HUs bit
..-(TY) Value (acres) .(HUs) Target Years::
0 0.15 9 1.35
1 0.0 9 0 0.68
5 0.0 9 0 0.00
50 0.0 9 0 0.00
Sum of HUs: 0.68
AAHUs
(over 50 years) 0.01
Table 2b. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Portuguese Bend Area
between -10 ft. and -20 ft. MLLW (part of Area 2) - Alternative 1.
• Target Year Habitat area Habitat Units HUs bit
(TY) Value (acres) (HUs) .Target Years'
0 0.15 23 3.45
1 0.15 23 3.45 3.45
14 0.5 23 11.50 97.18
15 1.0 23 23.00 17.25
17 1.0 23 23.00 46.00
50 1.0 23 23.00 759.00
Sum of HUs: 922.88
AAHUs
(over 50 years) 18.46
1
C-13
Table 2c. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Portuguese Bend Area
between -20 and -30 ft. it'1LL`V (Part of Area 2) - Alternative 1 or 2. •
Target Year Habitat Area Habitat Units .. HUs bit >:
(TY) Value (acres) (HUs)i Target Years
0 0.15 28 4.2
1 0.15 28 4.2 4.20
15 0.15 28 4.2 58.80
50 0.15 28 4.2 I 147.00
Sum of HUs: 210.00
AAHUs
(over 50 years) I 4.20
Table 2d. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) for Area 3 - Alternative 1 or 2.
Target Year Habitat I Area Habitat Units . ::::HUs bit
!'FT/1 CT..1-., r.,.._-..,ti - lTYYT Y�. `I^. Z7
k. I I 1 Y aiuc 1 dL.ic)l 1'{SIl.1.l-J- laLLget Leas:1
0 0.15 11 I 1.65
1 0.15 11 1.65 1.65 410
9 10.5 11 15.50 28.60
10 1.0 11 ( 11.00 8.25
C t
2U 1.0 11 111.0U 110.00
50 1.0 1i 111.00 330.00
Sum of HUs: 478.50
AAHUs
(over 50 years) 9.57
,i0
C-14
• Table 3. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) for Bunker Point Area (Area 4) -
All Alternatives. (Benefits are from eliminating turbidity in the existing kelp bed of Area
4. See Figure 5.1 of the DEIS for locations of Areas. )
Target Year Habitat Area 1-Habitat Units HUs h/t
(TY) Value (acres) (HUs) Target Years
0 0.35 163 57.05
1 1.0 163 163 110.03
15 1.0 163 163 2282.00
50 1.0 163 163 5705.00
Sum of HUs: 8097.03
AAHUs
(over 50 years) 161.94
Table 4a. Annual Average Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Bunker Point Area to
Whites Point Area between -10 ft. and -20 ft. MLLW (part of Area 5) - All
Alternatives.
•
Target Year Habitat> Area Habitat Units HUs bit
(TY) Value ; (acres) <(HUs) Target Years
0 0.39 18 7.02
1 0.39 18 7.02 7.02
11 0.5 18 9 80.10
12 1.0 18 18 13.50
20 1.0 18 18 144.00
50 1.0 18 18 540.00
Sum of HUs: 784.62
AAHUs
(over 50 years) 15.69
IIII
C-15
Table 4b. Annual Average Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Bunker Point Area to
Whites Point Area between -20 ft. and -30 ft. MLLW (part of Area 5) - All 0
Alternatives.
Target Year Habitat Area HabitatlJnits HUs bit
(TY) Value (acres) (HUs) Target Years
0 0.39 17 6.63
1 0.39 17 6.63 6.63
f I
30 0.39 17 6.63 192.27
50 i 0.39 17 6.63 ( 132.60
Sum of HUs: 331.50
AAHUs
1 ! (over 50 years) 6.63
T_LI_ d.. A-...�..�.. A 1 II...l.'t,.t TT...'4.. /A ACTT..\ .- 4.1.,, 72.. 170.- pr.i•.+ tri Whi+ne
14UIC ,4u. i- VCI age tilllludl 11AUILaL VIIILJ 1`C1- 1■VJ/ lvl Lime L411i...1 1 visa". Lv ••MIA.,"
Point Area (part of Area 5) - All Alternatives. (Benefits are from eliminating turbidity
in the existing kelp bed of Area 5- ) III
Targei`r,,._ 1 •rt,. n * 3 H l.;r,,;T`,,;4. 1 TT`? 1-.' `1
1 a get Year ] Jaab1tat Area 1 HavAtat,nhs
ym�r� 1 IT_t._ r_,-,..,� 1 f JTT.% ! T„---+Va„, 7
11J 1 vaiu� 1~actwf I;Llivaj I .a.ei .1,�.u.o i0 0.39195 76.05
1 1.0 195 195 135.53
15 1.0 195 195 2730.00
50 1.0 195 195 6825.00
Sum of HUs: 9690.53 I
I I
t ATT Ts
II I (over 50 years) I 193.81 I
*Area where trubidity benefits are claimed is 230-18-17 = 195 acres (i.e., 230 [Total of Area 5] -
18 [acres identified in Table 4a] - 17 [acres as identified in Table 4b]).
..
G16
• Table 5a. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Portuguese Bend Area
behind the dike (Area 1) - Alternative 2 or 2a.
Target Year Habitat Area Habitat Units HUs bit
(TY) Value (acres) (HtJs) Target Years
0 0.15 17 2.55
1 0.0 17 0 1.28
5 0.0 17 0 0.00
50 0.0 17 0 0.00
Sum of HUs: 1.28
AAHUs
(over 50 years) 0.03
Table 5b. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Portuguese Bend Area
between -10 ft. and -20 ft. MLLW (part of Area 2) - Alternative 2.
• Target Year Habitat Area Habitat Units HUs bit
(TY) Value (acres): (HUs) Target Years'.
0 0.15 13 1.95
1 0.15 13 1.95 1.95
14 0.5 13 6.5 54.93
15 1.0 13 13 9.75
17 1.0 13 13 26.00
50 1.0 13 13 429.00
Sum of HUs: 521.63
AAHUs
(over 50 years) 10.43
4110
C-17
4111/
Table 6a. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHTJs) for the Portuguese Bend Area
between -10 ft. and -20 ft. MLLW (part of Area 2) - Alternative la.
Target Year Habitat Area I Habitat Units HUs bit
(TY) Value (acres) I (HUs) > 'Target Years
0 0.15 23 3.45
I 10.15 i 23 3.45 3.45
r t
i2 0.5 23 1 11.50 i 7.48 ,
I 3 11.0 23 123.00 17.25 I
20 1.0 23 23.00 391.00
50 1.0 23 23.00 690.00
I
Sum of HUs: 1109.18
AAHUs
(over 50.years) I 22.1 R 1
IP
Table 6b. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Portuguese Bend Area
between -20 ft. and -30 ft. MLLW (part of Area 2) - Alternative la or 2a.
1 1 4 1
ITarget Year Habitat Area I Habitat Units I HUs bit 1
(TY) Value (acres) (HTTs' 1 Timet Years
t0 0.15 28 4.2
1 0.15 28 4.2 4.20
2 0.5 28 14 9.10
3 1.0 28 28 21.00 I
20 1 1.0 1 28 128 I 476.00
50 1.0 28 28 840.00
Sum of HUs: 1350.30
AAHUs
fI I I (over 50 years) I 27.01
C 18 O.
Table 6c. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) for Area 3 -
Alternative la or 2a.
Target Year Habitat Area Habitat Units` HUs bit
(TY) Value (acres): (HUs) ;; Target Years
0 0.15 11 1.65
1 0.15 11 1.65 1.65
2 0.5 11 5.50 3.58
3 1.0 11 11.00 8.25
20 1.0 11 11.00 187.00
50 1.0 11 11.00 330.00
Sum of HUs: 530.48
AAHIJs
(over 50 years) 10.61
0
Table 7. Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) for the Portuguese Bend Area
between -10 ft. and -20 ft. MLLW (part of Area 2) - Alternative 2a.
Target Year Habitat. Area Habitat Units HUs bit
(TY) Value (acres) - (HITs) <: Target Years
0 0.15 13 1.95
1 0.15 13 1.95 1.95
2 0.5 13 6.50 4.23
3 1.0 13 13.00 9.75
20 1.0 13 13.00 221.00
50 1.0 13 13.00 390.00
Sum of HUs: 626.93
AAHUs
(over 50 years) 12.54
0
C-19