Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation...
-
Upload
jaycee-halsted -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation...
![Page 1: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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
![Page 2: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
V. Draft Policy – Specific Elements
A. Avoiding and minimizing impactsB. Surveying C. Assessing impacts D. Mitigating for impacts E. Modifying provisions of the policy
![Page 5: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
A. Impact Avoidance and Minimization
Case-by-case basisShading• Stepwise key
Turbidity• Flowchart • Light monitoring
Circulation Patterns
![Page 6: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
B. Eelgrass Surveys
Survey Metrics• Spatial distribution• Area extent• Percent bottom cover• Shoot density• Frequency of occurrence
![Page 7: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
C. Assessing Impacts
Type of effect: direct vs indirect
Pre- and post- surveys of project and reference sites
![Page 10: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
D. Mitigating for Impacts
Site SelectionMitigation ratioTechniquesMonitoringDelaySuccess
![Page 11: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Mitigation Delay
To offset loss of eelgrass habitat value that accumulates over time
Mitigation calculator used to determine increases in mitigation planting
![Page 15: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
E. Modifying ProvisionsComprehensive management strategiesLocalized, temporary impacts• Less than 10 m2
• Eelgrass fully restored within 1 yearRegion-specific modificationsMitigation banking
![Page 16: Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062511/55194814550346990b8b460c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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