Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.

Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy

NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations Streamlined environmental review Allows for flexibility and modifications Improved monitoring and understanding

III. Purpose and Need – Why statewide policy?

Resource value: biological, physical and economic Vulnerable to human development Consistent statewide strategy and standards Internal and external coordination Streamlining Regulatory certainty

IV. Draft Policy – General Description

No net loss of habitatConsistency with case-by-case considerationsFollowing successful model of Southern CA

policyRecognizes regional differencesInternal guidance and appendices

V. Draft Policy – Specific Elements

A. Avoiding and minimizing impactsB. Surveying C. Assessing impacts D. Mitigating for impacts E. Modifying provisions of the policy

A. Impact Avoidance and Minimization

Case-by-case basisShading• Stepwise key

Turbidity• Flowchart • Light monitoring

Circulation Patterns

B. Eelgrass Surveys

Survey Metrics• Spatial distribution• Area extent• Percent bottom cover• Shoot density• Frequency of occurrence

Contiguous boundary around plants and outward a distance of 10 m, excluding gaps within the bed >20 m between plants

Eelgrass Bed Definition

Example Eelgrass Bed eelgrass 10 m boundary

B. Eelgrass Surveys (cont.)Techniques• Diver transects• Boundary mapping• Acoustic surveys• Aerial surveys

Methods• Pre- and post-construction• During active growing season• Valid for 60 days or beginning of next growing season

C. Assessing Impacts

Type of effect: direct vs indirect

Pre- and post- surveys of project and reference sites

D. Mitigating for Impacts

Site SelectionMitigation ratioTechniquesMonitoringDelaySuccess

Mitigation Ratios “The Five-Step Wetland Mitigation Calculator” (King and

Price 2004)• Objective, standardized ratios• Standard metrics• Likelihood of success based on history of transplanting within

regions

Compensation ratio 1.2:1 for all regions

Initial target mitigation ratio• Southern California 1.38:1• Central California 1.2:1• San Francisco 3.01:1• Northern California 4.82:1

Mitigation MonitoringMitigation site and reference site0 months: document transplants, establish

baseline at reference site6 months: confirm survival and/or recruitment12, 24, 36, 48, 60 months: evaluate mitigation

site and compare to reference site

Success CriteriaArea and density criteria• 6 month: 50% survival or 1 seedling/4m2

• 12 month: 40% area and 20% density• 24 months: 85% area and 70% density• 36, 48, 60 months: 100% area and 85% density

Supplemental Mitigation Area

Mitigation Delay

To offset loss of eelgrass habitat value that accumulates over time

Mitigation calculator used to determine increases in mitigation planting

E. Modifying ProvisionsComprehensive management strategiesLocalized, temporary impacts• Less than 10 m2

• Eelgrass fully restored within 1 yearRegion-specific modificationsMitigation banking

VI. Next Steps

Public comment• [email protected]• Closes 7/7

Public meetings• Eureka (6/15)• Oakland (6/27)• Long Beach (6/26)

Revise and finalize