Upload
marty
View
43
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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 DelayTo offset loss of eelgrass habitat value that
accumulates over timeMitigation 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