[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