[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14349-14350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5811]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XB068
Availability of Report: California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is providing this notice in order to allow other agencies
and the public an opportunity to review and provide comments on the
proposed adoption of the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP)
by NMFS Southwest Region (SWR) Habitat Conservation Division (HCD). The
intent of the CEMP is to help ensure consistent and effective
mitigation of unavoidable impacts to eelgrass habitat throughout the
SWR. The CEMP is a unified policy document for SWR-HCD, based on the
highly successful implementation of the Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy, which has improved mitigation effectiveness since
its initial adoption in 1991. This policy is needed to ensure
effective, statewide eelgrass mitigation and will help ensure that
unavoidable impacts to eelgrass habitat are fully and appropriately
mitigated. It is anticipated that the adoption and implementation of
this policy will provide for enhanced success of eelgrass mitigation in
California. Given the success of the Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy, the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy reflects
an expansion of the application of this policy with minor modifications
to ensure a high standard of statewide eelgrass management and
protection. The CEMP will supersede the Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy for all areas of California upon its adoption.
DATES: Public comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., Pacific
standard time May 8, 2012. All comments received before the due date
will be considered before finalizing the CEMP.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the CEMP may be submitted by mail to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Suite 325, Santa
Rosa, CA 95409, Attn: California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy Comments.
Comments may also be sent via facsimile to (707) 578-3435. Comments may
also be submitted electronically via email to SWR.CEMP@noaa.gov. All
comments received will become part of the public record and will be
available for review upon request.
The reports are available at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/or by
calling the contact person listed below or by sending a request to
Korie.Schaeffer@noaa.gov. Please include appropriate contact
information when requesting the documents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Korie Schaeffer, at 707-575-6087.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Eelgrass species are seagrasses that occur
in the temperate unconsolidated substrate of shallow coastal
environments, enclosed bays, and estuaries. Seagrass habitat has been
lost from temperate estuaries worldwide (Duarte 2002, Lotze et al.
2006, Orth et al. 2006). While both natural and human-induced
mechanisms have contributed to these losses, impacts from human
population expansion and associated pollution and upland development is
the primary cause (Short and Wyllie-Echeverria 1996). Throughout
California, human activities including, but not limited to, urban
development, recreational boating, and commercial shipping continue to
degrade, disturb, and/or destroy important eelgrass habitat. For
example, dredging and filling; shading and alteration of circulation
patterns; and watershed inputs of sediment, nutrients, and unnaturally
concentrated or directed freshwater flows can directly and indirectly
destroy eelgrass habitats. The importance of eelgrass both ecologically
and economically, coupled with ongoing human pressure and potentially
increasing degradation and loss from climate change, highlights the
need to protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance eelgrass
habitat.
Vegetated shallows that support eelgrass are considered a special
aquatic site under the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40
CFR 230.43). Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA), eelgrass is designated as Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) for various federally-managed fish species within the Pacific
Coast Groundfish and Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries Management Plans
(FMP) (PFMC 2008). Eelgrass is also considered a habitat area of
particular concern (HAPC) for various species within the Pacific Coast
Groundfish FMP. An HAPC is a subset of EFH; these areas are rare,
particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially
ecologically important, and/or located in an environmentally stressed
area.
The mission of NMFS SWR-HCD is to conserve, protect, and manage
living marine resources and the habitats that sustain them. Eelgrass is
a habitat of particular concern relative to accomplishing this mission.
Pursuant to the EFH provisions of the MSA, the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (FWCA), and obligations under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a responsible agency, NMFS Southwest
Region annually reviews and provides recommendations on numerous
actions that may affect eelgrass resources throughout California, the
only state within NMFS SWR that supports eelgrass resources. Section
305(b)(1)(D) of the MSA requires NMFS to coordinate with, and provide
information to, other Federal agencies regarding the conservation and
enhancement of EFH. Section 305(b)(2) requires all Federal agencies to
consult with the NMFS on all actions or proposed actions authorized,
funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH.
Under section 305(b)(4) of the MSA, NMFS is required to provide EFH
Conservation Recommendations to Federal and state agencies for actions
that would adversely affect EFH (50 CFR 600.925). NMFS makes its
recommendations with the goal of avoiding, minimizing, or otherwise
compensating for adverse effects to EFH. When impacts to NMFS trust
resources are unavoidable, NMFS may recommend compensatory mitigation
to offset those impacts. In order to fulfill its consultative role,
NMFS may also recommend, inter alia, the development of mitigation
plans, habitat distribution maps, surveys and survey reports, progress
milestones, monitoring programs, and reports
[[Page 14350]]
verifying the completion of mitigation activities.
Eelgrass warrants a strong protection strategy because of the
important biological, physical, and economic values it provides, as
well as its importance to managed species under the MSA. NMFS developed
this policy to establish and support a goal of protecting this resource
and its functions, including spatial coverage and density of eelgrass
beds. Further, it is the intent of this policy to ensure that there is
no net loss of habitat functions associated with delays in establishing
compensatory mitigation. This is to be accomplished by creating a
greater amount of eelgrass than is lost, if the mitigation is performed
contemporaneously or after the impacts occur.
This policy will serve as the guidance for staff and managers
within NMFS SWR for developing recommendations concerning eelgrass
issues through EFH and FWCA consultations and NEPA reviews throughout
California. It is also contemplated that this policy inform SWR's
position on eelgrass issues in other roles as a responsible, advisory,
or funding agency or trustee. In addition, this document provides
guidance on the procedures developed to assist NMFS SWR in performing
its consultative role under the statutes described above. Finally,
pursuant to NMFS obligation to provide information to federal agencies
under section 305(b)(1)(D) of the MSA, this policy serves that role by
providing information intended to further the conservation and
enhancement of EFH. Should this policy be inconsistent with any
formally-promulgated NMFS regulations, those formally-promulgated
regulations will supplant any inconsistent provisions of this policy.
While many of the activities impacting eelgrass are similar across
California, eelgrass stressors and growth characteristics differ
between southern California (U.S./Mexico border to Pt. Conception),
central California (Point Conception to San Francisco Bay entrance),
San Francisco Bay, and northern California (San Francisco Bay to the
California/Oregon border). The amount of scientific information
available to base management decisions on also differs among areas
within California, with considerably more information and history with
eelgrass habitat management in southern California than the other
regions. Gaps in region-specific scientific information do not override
the need to be protective of all eelgrass while relying on the best
information currently available from areas within and outside of
California. Although the primary orientation of this policy is toward
statewide use, specific elements of this policy may differ between
southern California, central California, northern California and San
Francisco Bay.
This policy is consistent with NMFS support for developing
comprehensive resource protection strategies that are protective of
eelgrass resources within the context of broader ecosystem needs and
management objectives. As such, this policy provides for the modified
application of policy elements for plans that provide comparable
eelgrass resource protection.
For all of California, eelgrass compensatory mitigation should be
considered only after avoidance and minimization of effects to eelgrass
have been pursued to the fullest extent possible. Mitigation should be
recommended for the loss of existing vegetated areas and the loss of
unvegetated areas that have been demonstrated capable of supporting
eelgrass based on recent history of eelgrass investigations, unless
physical manipulation of the environment has permanently altered site
suitability for eelgrass or a change in the baseline has occurred.
Under this policy, as is the case with the present Southern
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, the burden for successful
mitigation rests with the action party. As such, the action party
should fully consider and evaluate the costs and risks associated with
eelgrass mitigation and should take appropriate measures to ensure
success in achieving required performance milestones. While NMFS staff
can provide technical assistance, action parties are advised that they
are ultimately responsible for achieving mitigation success under this
policy, irrespective of advice or technical assistance provided by
NMFS, other agencies, or technical experts.
Authority
The authorities for publication of this policy notification are the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1855), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661), and the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Dated: March 5, 2012.
Brian T. Pawlak,
Acting Director, Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-5811 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P