Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations."— Presentation transcript:

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 A.Avoiding and minimizing impacts B.Surveying C.Assessing impacts D.Mitigating for impacts E.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 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

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/4m 2 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 m 2 Eelgrass fully restored within 1 year Region-specific modifications Mitigation banking

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


Download ppt "Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG (1991) Effective compensation for impacts (90% success) Basis for consistent recommendations."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google