Availability of Report: California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy; Extension of Comment Period, 25964-25966 [2012-10626]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
25964
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Notices
surveys; disturbance of animals on
rookeries and haulouts during brand
resighting surveys, and incidental to
scat collection; capture for instrument
attachment, branding, capture method
development, physiological research,
and sample collection; permanent
marking of pups for long-term
demographic and distribution studies;
capture of older animals for
physiological assessment; and
attachment of scientific instruments to
investigate foraging ecology, diving
behavior and habitat use. The permit
also authorizes unintentional mortality
of Steller sea lions, and incidental
harassment of harbor seals (Phoca
vitulina richardsi), northern fur seals
(Callorhinus ursinus), and California sea
lions (Zalophus californianus). The
permit was amended (to version no.
14325–01) on November 16, 2011, to
change the identity of the Principal
Investigator from Dr. Lorrie Rea to
Michael Rehberg.
The permit holder is requesting the
permit be amended to include changes
to the terms and conditions of the
permit related to numbers of animals
taken and to the location and manner of
taking to include: manual restraint of
pups in the eastern Distinct Population
Segment (eDPS) and western DPS
(wDPS); capture of adult Steller sea
lions using remotely delivered
immobilization agents; adding jugular
blood draw/catheter location for
sampling and Evans Blue injection;
adding the intraperitoneal cavity to
allowable deuterium injection sites;
modifying time of year and number of
takes for the Alsek/Akwe aerial surveys;
and adding aerial surveys at Cape
Newenham haulout and in the northern
Bering Sea.
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial
determination has been made that the
activities proposed are consistent with
the Preferred Alternative in the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Steller Sea Lion and
Northern Fur Seal Research (NMFS
2007), and that issuance of the permit
would not have a significant adverse
impact on the human environment.
Concurrent with the publication of
this notice in the Federal Register,
NMFS is forwarding copies of this
application to the Marine Mammal
Commission and its Committee of
Scientific Advisors.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 May 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
Dated: April 27, 2012.
Tammy C. Adams,
Acting Chief, Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–10629 Filed 5–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XB068
Availability of Report: California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy; Extension
of Comment Period
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS is announcing an
extension in the public comment period
for the notice to allow other agencies
and the public an opportunity to review
and provide comments on the proposed
adoption of the California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy (CEMP) by NMFS
Southwest Region (SWR) Habitat
Conservation Division (HCD). NMFS
published the CEMP, which included a
request for comment in the Federal
Register on March 9, 2012. The public
comment period was to end on May 8,
2012—60 days after publication in the
Federal Register. The purpose of this
document is to extend the comment
period an additional 60 days until July
7, 2012. This extension of the comment
period is provided to allow the public
additional time to provide comment on
the CEMP. The intent of the CEMP is to
help ensure consistent and effective
mitigation of unavoidable impacts to
eelgrass habitat throughout the SWR.
The CEMP is a unified policy document
for SWR–HCD, based on the highly
successful implementation of the
Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation
Policy, which has improved mitigation
effectiveness since its initial adoption in
1991. This policy is needed to ensure
effective, statewide eelgrass mitigation
and will help ensure that unavoidable
impacts to eelgrass habitat are fully and
appropriately mitigated. It is anticipated
that the adoption and implementation of
this policy will provide for enhanced
success of eelgrass mitigation in
California. Given the success of the
Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation
Policy, the California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy reflects an expansion
of the application of this policy with
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
minor modifications to ensure a high
standard of statewide eelgrass
management and protection. The CEMP
will supersede the Southern California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy for all areas
of California upon its adoption.
DATES: Public comments must be
received on or before 5 p.m., Pacific
standard time July 7, 2012. All
comments received before the due date
will be considered before finalizing the
CEMP.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the CEMP
may be submitted by mail to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, 777
Sonoma Avenue, Suite 325, Santa Rosa,
CA 95409, Attn: California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy Comments. Comments
may also be sent via facsimile to (707)
578–3435. Comments may also be
submitted electronically via email to
SWR.CEMP@noaa.gov. All comments
received will become part of the public
record and will be available for review
upon request.
The reports are available at https://
swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/ or by calling
the contact person listed below or by
sending a request to
Korie.Schaeffer@noaa.gov. Please
include appropriate contact information
when requesting the documents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Korie Schaeffer, at 707–575–6087.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Eelgrass
species are seagrasses that occur in the
temperate unconsolidated substrate of
shallow coastal environments, enclosed
bays, and estuaries. Seagrass habitat has
been lost from temperate estuaries
worldwide (Duarte 2002, Lotze et al.
2006, Orth et al. 2006). While both
natural and human-induced
mechanisms have contributed to these
losses, impacts from human population
expansion and associated pollution and
upland development is the primary
cause (Short and Wyllie-Echeverria
1996). Throughout California, human
activities including, but not limited to,
urban development, recreational
boating, and commercial shipping
continue to degrade, disturb, and/or
destroy important eelgrass habitat. For
example, dredging and filling; shading
and alteration of circulation patterns;
and watershed inputs of sediment,
nutrients, and unnaturally concentrated
or directed freshwater flows can directly
and indirectly destroy eelgrass habitats.
The importance of eelgrass both
ecologically and economically, coupled
with ongoing human pressure and
potentially increasing degradation and
loss from climate change, highlights the
need to protect, maintain, and where
feasible, enhance eelgrass habitat.
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Notices
Vegetated shallows that support
eelgrass are considered a special aquatic
site under the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the
Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230.43).
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA), eelgrass is designated as
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for various
federally-managed fish species within
the Pacific Coast Groundfish and Pacific
Coast Salmon Fisheries Management
Plans (FMP) (PFMC 2008). Eelgrass is
also considered a habitat area of
particular concern (HAPC) for various
species within the Pacific Coast
Groundfish FMP. An HAPC is a subset
of EFH; these areas are rare, particularly
susceptible to human-induced
degradation, especially ecologically
important, and/or located in an
environmentally stressed area.
The mission of NMFS SWR–HCD is to
conserve, protect, and manage living
marine resources and the habitats that
sustain them. Eelgrass is a habitat of
particular concern relative to
accomplishing this mission. Pursuant to
the EFH provisions of the MSA, the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA),
and obligations under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a
responsible agency, NMFS Southwest
Region annually reviews and provides
recommendations on numerous actions
that may affect eelgrass resources
throughout California, the only state
within NMFS SWR that supports
eelgrass resources. Section 305(b)(1)(D)
of the MSA requires NMFS to
coordinate with, and provide
information to, other Federal agencies
regarding the conservation and
enhancement of EFH. Section 305(b)(2)
requires all Federal agencies to consult
with the NMFS on all actions or
proposed actions authorized, funded, or
undertaken by the agency that may
adversely affect EFH. Under section
305(b)(4) of the MSA, NMFS is required
to provide EFH Conservation
Recommendations to Federal and state
agencies for actions that would
adversely affect EFH (50 CFR 600.925).
NMFS makes its recommendations with
the goal of avoiding, minimizing, or
otherwise compensating for adverse
effects to EFH. When impacts to NMFS
trust resources are unavoidable, NMFS
may recommend compensatory
mitigation to offset those impacts. In
order to fulfill its consultative role,
NMFS may also recommend, inter alia,
the development of mitigation plans,
habitat distribution maps, surveys and
survey reports, progress milestones,
monitoring programs, and reports
verifying the completion of mitigation
activities.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 May 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
Eelgrass warrants a strong protection
strategy because of the important
biological, physical, and economic
values it provides, as well as its
importance to managed species under
the MSA. NMFS developed this policy
to establish and support a goal of
protecting this resource and its
functions, including spatial coverage
and density of eelgrass beds. Further, it
is the intent of this policy to ensure that
there is no net loss of habitat functions
associated with delays in establishing
compensatory mitigation. This is to be
accomplished by creating a greater
amount of eelgrass than is lost, if
the mitigation is performed
contemporaneously or after the impacts
occur.
This policy will serve as the guidance
for staff and managers within NMFS
SWR for developing recommendations
concerning eelgrass issues through EFH
and FWCA consultations and NEPA
reviews throughout California. It is also
contemplated that this policy inform
SWR’s position on eelgrass issues in
other roles as a responsible, advisory, or
funding agency or trustee. In addition,
this document provides guidance on the
procedures developed to assist NMFS
SWR in performing its consultative role
under the statutes described above.
Finally, pursuant to NMFS obligation to
provide information to federal agencies
under section 305(b)(1)(D) of the MSA,
this policy serves that role by providing
information intended to further the
conservation and enhancement of EFH.
Should this policy be inconsistent with
any formally-promulgated NMFS
regulations, those formally-promulgated
regulations will supplant any
inconsistent provisions of this policy.
While many of the activities
impacting eelgrass are similar across
California, eelgrass stressors and growth
characteristics differ between southern
California (U.S./Mexico border to Pt.
Conception), central California (Point
Conception to San Francisco Bay
entrance), San Francisco Bay, and
northern California (San Francisco Bay
to the California/Oregon border). The
amount of scientific information
available to base management decisions
on also differs among areas within
California, with considerably more
information and history with eelgrass
habitat management in southern
California than the other regions. Gaps
in region-specific scientific information
do not override the need to be protective
of all eelgrass while relying on the best
information currently available from
areas within and outside of California.
Although the primary orientation of this
policy is toward statewide use, specific
elements of this policy may differ
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25965
between southern California, central
California, northern California and San
Francisco Bay.
This policy is consistent with NMFS
support for developing comprehensive
resource protection strategies that are
protective of eelgrass resources within
the context of broader ecosystem needs
and management objectives. As such,
this policy provides for the modified
application of policy elements for plans
that provide comparable eelgrass
resource protection.
For all of California, eelgrass
compensatory mitigation should be
considered only after avoidance and
minimization of effects to eelgrass have
been pursued to the fullest extent
possible. Mitigation should be
recommended for the loss of existing
vegetated areas and the loss of
unvegetated areas that have been
demonstrated capable of supporting
eelgrass based on recent history of
eelgrass investigations, unless physical
manipulation of the environment has
permanently altered site suitability for
eelgrass or a change in the baseline has
occurred.
Under this policy, as is the case with
the present Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy, the burden for
successful mitigation rests with the
action party. As such, the action party
should fully consider and evaluate the
costs and risks associated with eelgrass
mitigation and should take appropriate
measures to ensure success in achieving
required performance milestones. While
NMFS staff can provide technical
assistance, action parties are advised
that they are ultimately responsible for
achieving mitigation success under this
policy, irrespective of advice or
technical assistance provided by NMFS,
other agencies, or technical experts.
Reason for Granting an Extension
NMFS received a request for an
extension of the CEMP comment period
from an interested party, and has
determined that an extension of the
comment period for an additional 60
days would give the public adequate
time to provide meaningful comment on
the CEMP. However, this need must be
balanced with our desire to finalize the
policy in a timely manner. Accordingly,
the public comment period for the
CEMP published on March 9, 2012 (77
FR 14349) is extended until July 7,
2012. NMFS does not anticipate any
further extension of the comment period
at this time.
Authority
The authorities for publication of this
policy notification are the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
25966
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Notices
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855), the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661), and the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321).
Dated: April 27, 2012.
Brian T. Pawlak,
Acting Director, Office of Habitat
Conservation, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–10626 Filed 5–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XB105
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Three Marine
Geophysical Surveys in the Northeast
Pacific Ocean, June Through July 2012
National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
We have received an
application from the Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory, a part of Columbia
University, for an Incidental Harassment
Authorization to take marine mammals,
by harassment, incidental to conducting
three consecutive marine geophysical
surveys in the northeast Pacific Ocean,
June through July 2012.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than May 31, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the
application should be addressed to
Tammy C. Adams, Acting Chief, Permits
and Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–
3225. The mailbox address for providing
email comments is ITP.Cody@noaa.gov.
We are not responsible for email
comments sent to addresses other than
the one provided here. Comments sent
via email, including all attachments,
must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size.
All submitted comments are a part of
the public record and we will post to
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#applications without
change. All Personal Identifying
Information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise
sensitive or protected information.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 May 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
To obtain an electronic copy of the
application containing a list of the
references used in this document, write
to the previously mentioned address,
telephone the contact listed here (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or
visit the Internet at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#applications.
The National Science Foundation’s
(Foundation) draft Environmental
Assessment (Assessment) pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 and Executive Order 12114 is
also available at the same Internet
address. The Assessment incorporates
an ‘‘Environmental Assessment of a
marine geophysical survey by the R/V
Marcus G. Langseth in the northeastern
Pacific Ocean, June–July 2012,’’
prepared by LGL Limited environmental
research associates, on behalf of the
Foundation. The public can view
documents cited in this notice by
appointment, during regular business
hours, at the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeannine Cody or Howard Goldstein,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Office of Protected Resources, (301)
427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as
amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce
to authorize, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals of a
species or population stock, by United
States citizens who engage in a specified
activity (other than commercial fishing)
within a specified geographical region
if: (1) We make certain findings; (2) the
taking is limited to harassment; and (3)
we provide a notice of a proposed
authorization to the public for review.
We shall grant authorization for the
incidental taking of small numbers of
marine mammals if we find that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s), and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
subsistence uses (where relevant). The
authorization must set forth the
permissible methods of taking; other
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on the species or stock
and its habitat; and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings. We have
defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as ‘‘ * * * an impact resulting
from the specified activity that cannot
be reasonably expected to, and is not
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act established an
expedited process by which citizens of
the United States can apply for an
authorization to incidentally take small
numbers of marine mammals by
harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
Act establishes a 45-day time limit for
our review of an application followed
by a 30-day public notice and comment
period on any proposed authorizations
for the incidental harassment of small
numbers of marine mammals. Within 45
days of the close of the public comment
period, we must either issue or deny the
authorization and must publish a notice
in the Federal Register within 30 days
of our determination to issue or deny
the authorization.
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act defines
‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of pursuit,
torment, or annoyance which (i) has the
potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level
A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential
to disturb a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration,
breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment].
Summary of Request
We received an application on
January 27, 2012, from the LamontDoherty Earth Observatory
(Observatory) for the taking by
harassment, of small numbers of marine
mammals, incidental to conducting
three separate marine geophysical
surveys in the northeast Pacific Ocean.
We determined the application
complete and adequate on March 27,
2012.
The Observatory, with research
funding from the U.S. National Science
Foundation (Foundation), plans to
conduct three research studies on the
Juan de Fuca Plate, the Cascadia thrust
zone, and the Cascadia subduction
margin in waters off the Oregon and
Washington coasts. The Observatory has
proposed to conduct the first survey
from June 11 through July 5, 2012, the
second survey from July 5 through July
8, 2012, and the third survey from July
12 through July 23, 2012.
The Observatory plans to use one
source vessel, the R/V Marcus G.
Langseth (Langseth), a seismic airgun
array, a single hydrophone streamer,
and ocean bottom seismometers to
conduct the geophysical surveys.
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25964-25966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10626]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XB068
Availability of Report: California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy;
Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is announcing an extension in the public comment period
for the notice to allow other agencies and the public an opportunity to
review and provide comments on the proposed adoption of the California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP) by NMFS Southwest Region (SWR)
Habitat Conservation Division (HCD). NMFS published the CEMP, which
included a request for comment in the Federal Register on March 9,
2012. The public comment period was to end on May 8, 2012--60 days
after publication in the Federal Register. The purpose of this document
is to extend the comment period an additional 60 days until July 7,
2012. This extension of the comment period is provided to allow the
public additional time to provide comment on the CEMP. The intent of
the CEMP is to help ensure consistent and effective mitigation of
unavoidable impacts to eelgrass habitat throughout the SWR. The CEMP is
a unified policy document for SWR-HCD, based on the highly successful
implementation of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy,
which has improved mitigation effectiveness since its initial adoption
in 1991. This policy is needed to ensure effective, statewide eelgrass
mitigation and will help ensure that unavoidable impacts to eelgrass
habitat are fully and appropriately mitigated. It is anticipated that
the adoption and implementation of this policy will provide for
enhanced success of eelgrass mitigation in California. Given the
success of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, the
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy reflects an expansion of the
application of this policy with minor modifications to ensure a high
standard of statewide eelgrass management and protection. The CEMP will
supersede the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy for all
areas of California upon its adoption.
DATES: Public comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., Pacific
standard time July 7, 2012. All comments received before the due date
will be considered before finalizing the CEMP.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the CEMP may be submitted by mail to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Suite 325, Santa
Rosa, CA 95409, Attn: California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy Comments.
Comments may also be sent via facsimile to (707) 578-3435. Comments may
also be submitted electronically via email to SWR.CEMP@noaa.gov. All
comments received will become part of the public record and will be
available for review upon request.
The reports are available at https://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/ or by
calling the contact person listed below or by sending a request to
Korie.Schaeffer@noaa.gov. Please include appropriate contact
information when requesting the documents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Korie Schaeffer, at 707-575-6087.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Eelgrass species are seagrasses that occur
in the temperate unconsolidated substrate of shallow coastal
environments, enclosed bays, and estuaries. Seagrass habitat has been
lost from temperate estuaries worldwide (Duarte 2002, Lotze et al.
2006, Orth et al. 2006). While both natural and human-induced
mechanisms have contributed to these losses, impacts from human
population expansion and associated pollution and upland development is
the primary cause (Short and Wyllie-Echeverria 1996). Throughout
California, human activities including, but not limited to, urban
development, recreational boating, and commercial shipping continue to
degrade, disturb, and/or destroy important eelgrass habitat. For
example, dredging and filling; shading and alteration of circulation
patterns; and watershed inputs of sediment, nutrients, and unnaturally
concentrated or directed freshwater flows can directly and indirectly
destroy eelgrass habitats. The importance of eelgrass both ecologically
and economically, coupled with ongoing human pressure and potentially
increasing degradation and loss from climate change, highlights the
need to protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance eelgrass
habitat.
[[Page 25965]]
Vegetated shallows that support eelgrass are considered a special
aquatic site under the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40
CFR 230.43). Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA), eelgrass is designated as Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) for various federally-managed fish species within the Pacific
Coast Groundfish and Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries Management Plans
(FMP) (PFMC 2008). Eelgrass is also considered a habitat area of
particular concern (HAPC) for various species within the Pacific Coast
Groundfish FMP. An HAPC is a subset of EFH; these areas are rare,
particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially
ecologically important, and/or located in an environmentally stressed
area.
The mission of NMFS SWR-HCD is to conserve, protect, and manage
living marine resources and the habitats that sustain them. Eelgrass is
a habitat of particular concern relative to accomplishing this mission.
Pursuant to the EFH provisions of the MSA, the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (FWCA), and obligations under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a responsible agency, NMFS Southwest
Region annually reviews and provides recommendations on numerous
actions that may affect eelgrass resources throughout California, the
only state within NMFS SWR that supports eelgrass resources. Section
305(b)(1)(D) of the MSA requires NMFS to coordinate with, and provide
information to, other Federal agencies regarding the conservation and
enhancement of EFH. Section 305(b)(2) requires all Federal agencies to
consult with the NMFS on all actions or proposed actions authorized,
funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH.
Under section 305(b)(4) of the MSA, NMFS is required to provide EFH
Conservation Recommendations to Federal and state agencies for actions
that would adversely affect EFH (50 CFR 600.925). NMFS makes its
recommendations with the goal of avoiding, minimizing, or otherwise
compensating for adverse effects to EFH. When impacts to NMFS trust
resources are unavoidable, NMFS may recommend compensatory mitigation
to offset those impacts. In order to fulfill its consultative role,
NMFS may also recommend, inter alia, the development of mitigation
plans, habitat distribution maps, surveys and survey reports, progress
milestones, monitoring programs, and reports verifying the completion
of mitigation activities.
Eelgrass warrants a strong protection strategy because of the
important biological, physical, and economic values it provides, as
well as its importance to managed species under the MSA. NMFS developed
this policy to establish and support a goal of protecting this resource
and its functions, including spatial coverage and density of eelgrass
beds. Further, it is the intent of this policy to ensure that there is
no net loss of habitat functions associated with delays in establishing
compensatory mitigation. This is to be accomplished by creating a
greater amount of eelgrass than is lost, if the mitigation is performed
contemporaneously or after the impacts occur.
This policy will serve as the guidance for staff and managers
within NMFS SWR for developing recommendations concerning eelgrass
issues through EFH and FWCA consultations and NEPA reviews throughout
California. It is also contemplated that this policy inform SWR's
position on eelgrass issues in other roles as a responsible, advisory,
or funding agency or trustee. In addition, this document provides
guidance on the procedures developed to assist NMFS SWR in performing
its consultative role under the statutes described above. Finally,
pursuant to NMFS obligation to provide information to federal agencies
under section 305(b)(1)(D) of the MSA, this policy serves that role by
providing information intended to further the conservation and
enhancement of EFH. Should this policy be inconsistent with any
formally-promulgated NMFS regulations, those formally-promulgated
regulations will supplant any inconsistent provisions of this policy.
While many of the activities impacting eelgrass are similar across
California, eelgrass stressors and growth characteristics differ
between southern California (U.S./Mexico border to Pt. Conception),
central California (Point Conception to San Francisco Bay entrance),
San Francisco Bay, and northern California (San Francisco Bay to the
California/Oregon border). The amount of scientific information
available to base management decisions on also differs among areas
within California, with considerably more information and history with
eelgrass habitat management in southern California than the other
regions. Gaps in region-specific scientific information do not override
the need to be protective of all eelgrass while relying on the best
information currently available from areas within and outside of
California. Although the primary orientation of this policy is toward
statewide use, specific elements of this policy may differ between
southern California, central California, northern California and San
Francisco Bay.
This policy is consistent with NMFS support for developing
comprehensive resource protection strategies that are protective of
eelgrass resources within the context of broader ecosystem needs and
management objectives. As such, this policy provides for the modified
application of policy elements for plans that provide comparable
eelgrass resource protection.
For all of California, eelgrass compensatory mitigation should be
considered only after avoidance and minimization of effects to eelgrass
have been pursued to the fullest extent possible. Mitigation should be
recommended for the loss of existing vegetated areas and the loss of
unvegetated areas that have been demonstrated capable of supporting
eelgrass based on recent history of eelgrass investigations, unless
physical manipulation of the environment has permanently altered site
suitability for eelgrass or a change in the baseline has occurred.
Under this policy, as is the case with the present Southern
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, the burden for successful
mitigation rests with the action party. As such, the action party
should fully consider and evaluate the costs and risks associated with
eelgrass mitigation and should take appropriate measures to ensure
success in achieving required performance milestones. While NMFS staff
can provide technical assistance, action parties are advised that they
are ultimately responsible for achieving mitigation success under this
policy, irrespective of advice or technical assistance provided by
NMFS, other agencies, or technical experts.
Reason for Granting an Extension
NMFS received a request for an extension of the CEMP comment period
from an interested party, and has determined that an extension of the
comment period for an additional 60 days would give the public adequate
time to provide meaningful comment on the CEMP. However, this need must
be balanced with our desire to finalize the policy in a timely manner.
Accordingly, the public comment period for the CEMP published on March
9, 2012 (77 FR 14349) is extended until July 7, 2012. NMFS does not
anticipate any further extension of the comment period at this time.
Authority
The authorities for publication of this policy notification are the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
[[Page 25966]]
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(16 U.S.C. 661), and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321).
Dated: April 27, 2012.
Brian T. Pawlak,
Acting Director, Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-10626 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
