[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66360-66361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26467]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XD572
Availability of Report: California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and
Implementing Guidelines
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing this notice to provide the final California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP) and Implementing Guidelines by NMFS
West Coast Region (WCR) to agencies and the public to ensure there is a
clear and transparent process for developing eelgrass mitigation
recommendations. The intent of the CEMP is to help ensure consistent,
effective, and appropriate mitigation of unavoidable impacts to
eelgrass habitat throughout California. It is anticipated that the
adoption and implementation of this policy will provide for enhanced
success of eelgrass mitigation in California. The CEMP and Implementing
Guidelines, responses to comments received on the draft CEMP, and other
supporting documents are available at http://wcr.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/
or by calling the contact person listed below or by sending a request
to [email protected]. 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. California supports dynamic
eelgrass habitats that range in extent from less than 11,000 acres to
possibly as much as 15,000 acres statewide. While among the most
productive of habitats, the overall low statewide abundance makes
eelgrass one of the rarest habitats in California. 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). Human activities
that affect eelgrass habitat distribution and abundance, including, but
not limited to, urban development, harbor development, aquaculture,
agricultural runoff, effluent discharges, and upland land use
associated sediment discharge (Duarte 2008) occur throughout
California. The importance of eelgrass both ecologically and
economically, coupled with ongoing human pressure and potentially
increasing degradation and losses associated with climate change,
highlight the need to protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance
eelgrass habitat.
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 Magnuson Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NMFS developed the CEMP and
Implementing Guidelines to establish and support a goal of protecting
this resource and its habitat functions, including spatial coverage and
density of eelgrass habitats. The CEMP includes NMFS' policy to
recommend no net loss of eelgrass habitat function in California. For
all of California, compensatory mitigation should be recommended for
the loss of existing eelgrass habitat function, but only after
avoidance and minimization of effects to eelgrass have been pursued to
the maximum extent practicable. Our approach is congruous with the
approach taken in the federal Clean Water Act guidelines under section
404(b)(1) (40 CFR part 230). In absence of a complete functional
assessment, eelgrass distribution and density should serve as a proxy
for eelgrass habitat function. Compensatory mitigation options include
comprehensive management plans, in-kind mitigation,
[[Page 66361]]
mitigation banks and in-lieu-fee programs, and out-of-kind mitigation.
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. To achieve this, NMFS, in
most instances, should recommend compensatory mitigation for vegetated
and unvegetated eelgrass habitat is successfully completed at a ratio
of at least 1.2:1 mitigation area to impact area.
Vegetated shallows that support eelgrass are also considered
special aquatic sites under the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water
Act (40 CFR 230.43). Pursuant to the MSA, eelgrass is designated as an
essential fish habitat (EFH) habitat area of particular concern (HAPC)
for various federally-managed fish species within the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (PFMC 2008). An HAPC is a
subset of EFH that is rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced
degradation, especially ecologically important, and/or located in an
environmentally stressed area (See 50 CFR 600. 815(a)(8)).
This policy and guidelines support but do not expand upon existing
NMFS authorities under the MSA, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(FWCA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to
the EFH provisions of the MSA, FWCA, and NEPA, NMFS annually reviews
and provides recommendations on numerous actions that may affect
eelgrass resources throughout California. 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 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
NMFS trust resources. 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, among other things, the development of eelgrass habitat
distribution maps, eelgrass surveys and survey reports, mitigation
plans and implementation reports, and monitoring programs and reports.
The CEMP and Implementing Guidelines will serve as the guidance for
staff and managers within NMFS WCR for developing recommendations
concerning eelgrass issues through EFH and FWCA consultations and NEPA
reviews throughout California. It is also contemplated that this policy
inform WCR's position on eelgrass issues in other roles as a
responsible, advisory, or funding agency or trustee. 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.
As all mitigation will be decided on a case by case basis,
circumstances may exist where NMFS WCR staff will need to modify or
deviate from the recommendations discussed in the CEMP Implementing
Guidelines.
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.
Dated: October 27, 2014.
Sean Corson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-26467 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P