Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy

1. 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

2. 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

3. IV. Draft Policy – General Description • No net loss of habitat • Consistency with case-by-case considerations • Following successful model of Southern CA policy • Recognizes regional differences • Internal guidance and appendices

4. V. Draft Policy – Specific Elements • Avoiding and minimizing impacts • Surveying • Assessing impacts • Mitigating for impacts • Modifying provisions of the policy

5. A. Impact Avoidance and Minimization • Case-by-case basis • Shading • Stepwise key • Turbidity • Flowchart • Light monitoring • Circulation Patterns

6. B. Eelgrass Surveys • Survey Metrics • Spatial distribution • Area extent • Percent bottom cover • Shoot density • Frequency of occurrence

7. Eelgrass Bed Definition Contiguous boundary around plants and outward a distance of 10 m, excluding gaps within the bed >20 m between plants Example Eelgrass Bed eelgrass 10 m boundary

8. 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

9. C. Assessing Impacts • Type of effect: direct vs indirect • Pre- and post- surveys of project and reference sites

10. D. Mitigating for Impacts • Site Selection • Mitigation ratio • Techniques • Monitoring • Delay • Success

11. 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

12. Mitigation Monitoring • Mitigation site and reference site • 0 months: document transplants, establish baseline at reference site • 6 months: confirm survival and/or recruitment • 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 months: evaluate mitigation site and compare to reference site

13. Success Criteria • Area 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

14. Mitigation Delay • To offset loss of eelgrass habitat value that accumulates over time • Mitigation calculator used to determine increases in mitigation planting

15. E. Modifying Provisions • Comprehensive management strategies • Localized, temporary impacts • Less than 10 m2 • Eelgrass fully restored within 1 year • Region-specific modifications • Mitigation banking

16. VI. Next Steps • Public comment • swr.cemp@noaa.gov • Closes 7/7 • Public meetings • Eureka (6/15) • Oakland (6/27) • Long Beach (6/26) • Revise and finalize