Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2012 / Notices 14349 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: March 5, 2012. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5698 Filed 3–8–12; 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 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is providing this notice 

in order 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). 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 May 8, 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 http:// 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14350 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2012 / Notices 

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. 

Authority 

The authorities for publication of this 

policy notification are the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

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: March 5, 2012. 

Brian T. Pawlak, 

Acting Director, Office of Habitat 

Conservation, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5811 Filed 3–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XB072 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of meetings of the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) 

Implementation Team. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) IFQ 

Implementation Team will meet March 

26, 2012 in Anchorage, AK. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

March 26, 2012, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 West 

3rd Avenue, King Salmon/Illiamna 

Room, Anchorage, AK. 

Council address: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 

4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

DiCosimo, Council staff; telephone: 

(907) 271–2809. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Team 

will review the discussion papers on 

Vessel Monitoring System requirement 

and a discussion paper on proposed 

changes to the Halibut and sablefish IFQ 

Program. 

The Agenda posted at http:// 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail 

Bendixen at (907) 271–2809 at least 7 

working days prior to the meeting date. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES