Commission asks for site‑specific eelgrass update; consultants outline monitoring and mitigation steps

Commissioners raised concerns that the biological report included in the commission packet was prepared for 46 Cliff Road rather than 43 Cliff Road. Several commissioners asked staff and the applicant to confirm whether existing consultant data are directly applicable to 43 Cliff or whether a new, site‑specific report should be prepared.

Sean Avant of Sunset Ecological Solutions explained that the engineer’s plans used a 2019 bay‑wide eelgrass survey layer and that an adjacent consultant’s report covering 46 Cliff included data for adjacent areas that encompass 43 Cliff. Avant described a mitigation pathway guided by National Marine Fisheries Service consultation and the California Eelgrass Mitigation Program (CEMP): a baseline eelgrass survey within 60 days of construction start, a post‑construction survey within 30 days after work concludes, and mitigation obligations calculated from any measured losses. “Part of the National Marine Fisheries Service consultation with the US Army Corps is that you must follow the CEMP,” Avant said.

Commissioners suggested as a condition — or as a docket amendment — that the Merkel & Associates documentation be revised or supplemented to explicitly reference 43 Cliff so the commission and downstream agencies have a site‑specific record. Staff said the commission should be comfortable making the determination that the available analyses apply to the site or should require a supplemental report from the consultant.

The practical implication: agency signoffs (Army Corps, BCDC and NMFS) and the applicant’s ability to begin in‑water work depend on those documented surveys and any resulting mitigation commitments. Staff and the applicant said they are coordinating with the consultant to produce any necessary supplemental materials.