[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25964-25966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10626]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XB068


Availability of Report: California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy; 
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS is announcing an extension in the public comment period 
for the notice 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). NMFS published the CEMP, which 
included a request for comment in the Federal Register on March 9, 
2012. The public comment period was to end on May 8, 2012--60 days 
after publication in the Federal Register. The purpose of this document 
is to extend the comment period an additional 60 days until July 7, 
2012. This extension of the comment period is provided to allow the 
public additional time to provide comment on the CEMP. 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 July 7, 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 [email protected]. 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 
[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. 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.

[[Page 25965]]

    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 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.

Reason for Granting an Extension

    NMFS received a request for an extension of the CEMP comment period 
from an interested party, and has determined that an extension of the 
comment period for an additional 60 days would give the public adequate 
time to provide meaningful comment on the CEMP. However, this need must 
be balanced with our desire to finalize the policy in a timely manner. 
Accordingly, the public comment period for the CEMP published on March 
9, 2012 (77 FR 14349) is extended until July 7, 2012. NMFS does not 
anticipate any further extension of the comment period at this time.

Authority

    The authorities for publication of this policy notification are the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

[[Page 25966]]

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: April 27, 2012.
Brian T. Pawlak,
Acting Director, Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-10626 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P