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 habitat Consistency with case-by-case considerations Following successful model of Southern CA policy Recognizes regional differences Internal guidance and appendices

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

A. Impact Avoidance and Minimization Case-by-case basis Shading 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 Selection Mitigation ratio Techniques Monitoring Delay Success

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 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

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

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

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

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