anchor-outs have significantly harmed the ecosystem

[gamayun]

Below is some info from a recent report I did that might help regarding dredging projects, which are required to avoid and minimize (first) and then mitigate for any activities that cause direct impacts to eelgrass/seagrass. This is pretty much the same anywhere in the US.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, eelgrass is designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) for various federally-managed fish species within the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Vegetated shallows that support eelgrass are also considered special aquatic sites under the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 C.F.R. § 230.43). Eelgrass is also protected under the California Coastal Act.

In-kind compensation is one type of mitigation that provides for the creation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat to mitigate for adverse impacts to the same type of habitat. In most cases in-kind mitigation is the preferred option to compensate for impacts to eelgrass, in which a final mitigation ratio of 1.2:1 should be achieved.

....As to my understanding of the anchor-outs, there's currently no program and no fees for using that area so there's also nothing required of them to avoid or mitigate impacts to eelgrass. Tomales Bay is one area that recently implemented a mooring program, which is likely what will eventually happen in Richardson Bay as soon as someone takes ownership of the problem. My guess is that Audubon's timely report is meant to further incentivize the BCDC to address enforcement actions in San Francisco Bay after a recent state audit that basically said (among a number of findings) that BCDC has jurisdiction to go after environmental violators in Richardson Bay.

https://www.marinij.com/2019/05/17/s...y-anchor-outs/

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

For the forests that burned the last couple years in Northern California, over 60% were Federal forests. I do know that Cal Fire does do some controlled Burns in the spring. California generally has six months of rain and six months of sunshine. It's at the end of that six months of sunshine where the fire danger is dangerous High. Actually it's pretty dry in July too for that matter.

Usually by June the are not controlled burns anywhere as its just too dry.

I understand, you can’t stop the fires with controlled burning, but you can mitigate the damage.
I actually know a bit about California’s fire programs from my knowledge of what is called the “SEAT” program, which is single engine air tankers.
It’s Ag spray planes converted and or used for fire suppression.
Let’s just say that fires in California are BIG business and everyone has an agenda, and putting out a fire isn’t surprisingly usually it.
Quite a few actually benefit from big destructive fires, but don’t from little fires that are quickly extinguished and or prevented.

Someone stands to benefit from this anchor damage study, often times it’s as simple as follow the money to determine who that person is, who funded the study is often the answer.

I had a German friend who told me several German “sayings”
One of my favorites was “Statistics are like a Lady of the Evening, if your paying, you get what you pay for.”

Transpose Statistics for Studies and it still works.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by thinwater

I don't have a dog in the fight, but...

. . .

I wonder how the cost of a good screw pile mooring compares to using your own tackle, taken over 10 years, no profit. And obviously, you can fit the boats more closely. Given the experience in Boot Key, they are clearly more secure (one one mooring failed in the huricane--the losses were all related to personal pendants).

Good questions and observations Thinwater.

The holding power of helix moorings is tremendous, far beyond Dor-mor or mushroom anchors or blocks. The pendants need to be changed out from time to time, but realistically it is the snubbers chafing and the boat cleats are typically the weak links that make a boat break loose and go drift about. Unlike a chained mooring there isn't wear on the tackle from rubbing the bottom, which is of course the ecologically beneficial attribute.

I suspect once installed the biggest cost of operating a mooring field is collecting the fees, as that involves shoreside labor and transactional costs. Considerable additional cost if someone has to motor out to the boats to collect the fees.

The mooring itself is not very expensive, it is the contracted hydraulic installation effort that kicks the cost up but all in modest.

FYI.

BoatUS – Hurricane Center – Hurricane Moorings

"Most installations take about an hour. The cost for a large helix is about $2,000 and about $1,500 for a medium helix."

Helix mooring anchors are far superior to all other mooring anchors on the market. BoatUS Insurance and Cruising World Magazine have conducted pull tests to compare the holding power of the typical anchors used to moor boats. Their findings have proven that helix anchors have 4 to 5 time the holding power compared to all the alternatives. A single helix anchor, properly installed, can withstand the pulling force of a 800 hp Tug boat. Many different test pulls, with strain gauges in the line have registered in excess of 20,000 lbs of holding.

"Installation of a helix, unlike a traditional mooring, requires expertise and special hydraulic equipment. The anchors that are made by A. B. Chance Co. of hot-dipped galvanized steel have 1 3/4"shafts and either 8", 10", 12", or 14" diameter helices. Extenders can be used to drive the mooring further into the seabed for additional holding power. Royce Randlett, Jr., president of Helix Mooring Systems Inc., says the company has installed over 3,000 helix anchors plus a similar number of a smaller (5' 6" with a round shaft) "lighter load helix anchor with a single helice. The latter is installed by a diver and is only suitable for smaller boats.

The helix isn't infallible; there have been several cases where helix anchors have pulled out. In one case, the helix was being used to secure a 72' sailboat in Marion, Massachusetts during an especially fierce northeaster. While a helix requires less scope than a conventional mooring, this helix had almost no scope because of the storm's surge, according to George Jennings, who was then the harbormaster in Marion, and was pumped out of the bottom by the boat's fore-and-aft rocking motion.

In another case, a helix let go because it was installed by someone who was inexperienced and drove it only part of the way into a rocky bottom. One of the problems has been that the number of people who are qualified to install helix anchors; there are only 20 installers, mostly in the Northeast, with a handful in other states—Maryland, Florida, and Washington. Ham Gale, who installs helix anchors in the Annapolis , Maryland area, uses a specially-designed platform—a raft—for the hydraulic installation equipment that can be towed to the spot where the mooring will be installed. Two long metal pipes—called spades—at the ends of the platform are then lowered into the harbor bottom to anchor the platform and prevent it from twisting while the helix is being screwed into the bottom. The holding power of a helix is ultimately based on the density of the bottom and it's depth into the bottom. Using a pressure gauge, an installer can estimate a helixes holding power by translating pounds per square inch to torque. If a helix goes into the bottom too easily, Gale says the installer can add an extender to take it down further to firmer soil. "

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by admiralslater

We have spent a lot of time in the Grenadines since 1994 . During this time I have been to observe what happens when moorings become the norm .
In the Tobago Cays ,which sees hundreds of boats a week, they allow anchoring or you can take a ball . Most charter boats take a ball . They also have cordoned off an area from all boat traffic except dingys . The result is a return of sea grass and of turtles,rays etc.
In Bequia where the unregulated placement of moorings is rampant the bay has much more sealife and cleaner water than you might expect for such a busy anchourage .
My libertarian friend who is a captain in Bequia ,was originally against the moorings and the boat free area in the keys but now is in favour of them and told me that the water in Bequia is clearer now than 15 years ago .
In Dominica they use Dyneema instead of chain to further reduce damage to the sea bottom.
I like to anchour as much as the next guy ,but you cant really argue about the damage . Also saying “what about this or what about that “ does not change the facts .
Perhaps rich land owners will use this as an argument but just because a rich guy may have an agenda does not mean it is not true

There is no question that moorings are better for the environment.

Thanks for this. I find arguing that studies/reports/data are all biased and that government regulations are all bad to be very tedious. Everyone and everything has inherent biases and many regulations are burdensome and costly for businesses/people. A64 and others need to move on already

[Arthurwg]

That's it, no more donations to the Audubon Society.

[a64pilot]

See, I have a feeling where this is going.
I detest Mooring fields, I’m sitting in one right now, St. Augustine.
I think it’s about $25 a day, and for this $25 you do get a pump out, a dinghy dock and use of one of four showers, two female and two for males.
90 slip Marina and I believe 110 balls and four showers.
Now I’m sure that the City just can’t make a profit or even cover costs for the measly $82,500 a month they collect from the Mooring field.
It’s full now and it’s not even “season”.
I’m sure they are losing money at that rate, it really cost $50 a day

Take those people in Richardson’s bay, a place I have never seen by the way and have no knowledge of and do them a real favor and force them to move onto mooring balls for $25 a day, or be real nice to them, give them a monthly rate of only $400 a month.

Tell me what is going to happen to them? Do you think they have an extra $400 a month to pay for a mooring?

Oh no, we aren’t trying to get rid of those people and their boats, we are just trying to protect the sea grass, it’s really about protecting the sea grass after all.

[Singularity]

It's my understanding up in Port San Luis (CA) that the moorings used to cost something like $5k to install with a subsequent small monthly fee for usage (see below). Then the municipality upped the fee dramatically--effectively pushing people out (at least the ones that didn't blow ashore). All this with much less net wealth (I think) having to stare at Port San Luis harbor.

"But the cost of mooring in the port is about to change. According to the mooring and water use regulations, boaters only had to pay $31 to $45 a month depending on the size of the boat. However, on June 27, the Port San Luis Harbor Commission adopted an update to those regulations. Starting in January, boat occupants will now have to pay $250 per month."
https://www.newtimesslo.com/sanluiso...nt?oid=3975388

Given the current and realistic future economic climate, I don't agree that it's prudent to give this kind of report any merit beyond what is required by statute. Keeping the topic alive really only serves the purposes of those wanting boats gone.

I wish there were more small plane pilots here to recount what occurred with general aviation over the last few decades (at least in the US). Maybe in the 1990s nuisance/user fees started showing up that primarily pinched only the poorest of pilots (insofar as there is such a thing). The poor folks complained while the average pilot...and the rich...didn't seem to care, often siding with the entity charging the fees (for whatever reason). Now things are so expensive that even the rich folks are complaining and there's no one to listen. Little plane aviation is basically no longer affordable to a middle-class person unless it is their exclusive hobby in life.

I don't think that the general public has any more sympathy for a "rich yacht owner" than they do for a "rich airplane owner" (even if the vehicle is 50 years old and costs the same as a new SUV). Do we call it success when the grass is protected and no one can afford to cruise any longer?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

... Yes of course there is damage, but how significant is it, how quickly does it recover and does it not possibly stimulate growth?
I don’t pretend to know, but I know enough to not be horrified by studies that the funding source isn’t clear, and especially from groups that do have clear agendas...

Had you read the study, on which you comment, you'd know:

From the paper’s Abstract:
“... The purpose of our study was to provide factual evidence for policy makers by quantifying damage to eelgrass caused by illegal anchor-outs in San Francisco Bay, an issue that has been disputed for decades. Using aerial imagery and GIS analyses, we determined the amount of direct damage to eelgrass caused by anchor-outs. We found that boats damage up to 41% of the eelgrass bed, and each boat may cause up to 0.3 ha of damage. These results can be used to inform decisions about anchor-outs by stakeholders and government agencies ...”


From the paper’s Discussion:
“... Illegally anchored boats in Richardson Bay have been highly controversial, and we hope our study will inform policy decisions. If boats are removed from Richardson Bay, the eelgrass bed within the anchorage likely could recover in about three years and epifaunal richness could restore in just one year. Eelgrass recovery may increase potential for sediment stabilization, increase water clarity, and increase shoreline protection through reduced wave action. Scientific evidence may inform future policy to protect eelgrass not only in San Francisco Bay, but across the Pacific coast.


From the paper's Acknowledgements:
This research was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
We thank Pat and Julie Belanger of 111th Aerial Photography Group for taking the aerial images.
Dr. Katharyn Boyer and Dr. Ellen Hines gave valuable input regarding the identification of anchor scour and eelgrass conservation in San Francisco Bay.
We appreciate Dr. Tendai Chitewere, Heather Richard, Keith Merkel, Barbara Salzman, and representatives from Marin County, the City of Sausalito, and the RBRA for discussions on the anchor-out issue that informed this work.
Conversations with Alden Bevington and others from the Richardson Bay Special Anchorage Association also provided insight into the anchor-out community.
We also thank Andrea Jones, Anna Weinstein, Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg, and our peer reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by gamayun

....As to my understanding of the anchor-outs, there's currently no program and no fees for using that area so there's also nothing required of them to avoid or mitigate impacts to eelgrass. Tomales Bay is one area that recently implemented a mooring program, which is likely what will eventually happen in Richardson Bay as soon as someone takes ownership of the problem. My guess is that Audubon's timely report is meant to further incentivize the BCDC to address enforcement actions in San Francisco Bay after a recent state audit that basically said (among a number of findings) that BCDC has jurisdiction to go after environmental violators in Richardson Bay.

I believe it's the Richardson Bay Regional Authority, that oversees Richardson Bay. They have been trying for many decades to do something.

Sausalito has taken ownership of anchorage West of the channel. They do have some mooring balls, and they have been enforcing their regulations on the west of the channel areas.

The issue is the 150- 200 boats on the west side of the channel. RBRA nearly had The Mooring field approved 2 years ago, but Sausalito refused To provide any additional funds for it. The issue is coming up with the quarter million dollars for a hundred ball Mooring field.

Of course that makes the question where do the other hundred boats go to. Plus providing restrooms, trash and better dinghy docks is part of the cost also. All that is on Sausalito shoulders. Which I imagine that's why they backed out of that agreement.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Had you read the study, on which you comment, you'd know:

From the paper’s Abstract:
“... The purpose of our study was to provide factual evidence for policy makers by quantifying damage to eelgrass caused by illegal anchor-outs in San Francisco Bay, an issue that has been disputed for decades. Using aerial imagery and GIS analyses, we determined the amount of direct damage to eelgrass caused by anchor-outs. We found that boats damage up to 41% of the eelgrass bed, and each boat may cause up to 0.3 ha of damage. These results can be used to inform decisions about anchor-outs by stakeholders and government agencies ...”


From the paper’s Discussion:
“... Illegally anchored boats in Richardson Bay have been highly controversial, and we hope our study will inform policy decisions. If boats are removed from Richardson Bay, the eelgrass bed within the anchorage likely could recover in about three years and epifaunal richness could restore in just one year. Eelgrass recovery may increase potential for sediment stabilization, increase water clarity, and increase shoreline protection through reduced wave action. Scientific evidence may inform future policy to protect eelgrass not only in San Francisco Bay, but across the Pacific coast.


From the paper's Acknowledgements:
This research was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
We thank Pat and Julie Belanger of 111th Aerial Photography Group for taking the aerial images.
Dr. Katharyn Boyer and Dr. Ellen Hines gave valuable input regarding the identification of anchor scour and eelgrass conservation in San Francisco Bay.
We appreciate Dr. Tendai Chitewere, Heather Richard, Keith Merkel, Barbara Salzman, and representatives from Marin County, the City of Sausalito, and the RBRA for discussions on the anchor-out issue that informed this work.
Conversations with Alden Bevington and others from the Richardson Bay Special Anchorage Association also provided insight into the anchor-out community.
We also thank Andrea Jones, Anna Weinstein, Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg, and our peer reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

Gord, I like you and respect that your smarter than the average Bear.
But please understand that by quoting what the study says it’s intent is, may not be the “real” intent of the study.

It’s sort of like when the FAA shows up and says they are here to help, they aren’t really there to help, even if that is their stated intent.

I don’t intend to read the study.
Why? Because I don’t believe the study states it’s actual intent, and I’m very suspect of the findings.
Call that ignorant if you like, but I don’t believe anything RJ Reynolds funds either

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Shrew

This is a common tactic by the wealthy trying to drive out transient boats and extend their land rights out to the adjacent ocean. It's also fairly common with the ultra-conservative conservationists.

I agree, Shrew,

The anchored boats in Richardson Bay have been a bone of contention since I used to live in the Bay Area. There are derelicts among them. And it reminds me of FL. The folks with the $$ who don't want them there will use any one at all to get their way. Places to anchor that are protected are limited. There are many, many boats.

It is a difficult problem, and as we've seen, sometimes States adopt draconian measures....

I did note that the article was biased, in that the eel grass doesn't get chewed up in the shallow areas, so they picked the worst area, and made it sound as if it was the whole area, which actually is quite a bit larger.

There are places along the East Coast of Australia, where there are anchored moorings out to a depth of 30 ft., and deeper than 30 ft., one is allowed to anchor.



Ann

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Shrew

I was thinking about this a bit and it occurred to me.

Why not refocus on the farms and gardens which are systematically 'destroying' the land with their plows? Why no "Save the dandelions adn crab grass" committee?

Going off topic here, so here we go.

Ha, Ask and ye shall receive. There is an organization in Montana that is working on restoring and preserving native prairie lands. Albeit not focussed on farms or garden lawns per say.

"The American Prairie Reserve (APR) is an independent non-profit organization that has privately undertaken a visionary, long-term project in northeastern Montana to create a wildlife conservation area of over three million contiguous acres through a combination of stitching together by purchases, leases and conservation easements of private lands and vast stretches of existing public lands. The public lands include, State of Montana lands & US Bureau of Land Management [BLM] parcels to which APR is striving towards obtaining "grazing" leases, the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and likely to include the participation of a couple of nearby Indian reservations. American Prairie Reserve is creating the largest nature reserve in the continental United States. American Prairie Reserve represents a unique effort to assemble a multi-million-acre nature reserve that conserves the species-rich grasslands of Montana’s legendary Great Plains for the enjoyment of future generations. When complete, American Prairie Reserve will span more than three million acres of private and public land, showcasing the iconic landscape that once dominated central North America and helped shape our national character.

Temperate grasslands are the least protected biome on Earth, with only four places left in the world – including the prairies of Montana – that are viable options for landscape-scale conservation.
Pursuing a new approach. Unlike early park-building efforts that relied on the federal government, the Reserve uses a public-private partnership model that stitches together fragmented public lands through the purchase of private lands all thanks to donors."

APR believes that, "By purchasing a relatively small number of acres from willing sellers in northeastern Montana, we hope to link together the millions of acres of public land already set aside for wildlife and visitor access in the region, thereby creating a seamless landscape reminiscent of that seen by Lewis and Clark in the early 1800's" As of April, 2018 the Reserve area consisted of 399,000 acres in northeastern Montana, about one-fourth owned and the remainder leased. Once a piece of land is fully owned by the American Prairie Reserve, a conservation easement is placed on the property. The conservation easements prohibit plowing of native grasses and other activities such as development or fragmentation of the land that might destroy or alter the native habitat and helps to ensure public access. Do note that the APR is not without its share of controversy under the Big Sky. The majority of the opposition to the American Prairie Reserve stems from nearby cattle ranchers who may desire to compete in the open market for purchasing or leasing land the reserve is attempting to purchase or lease. Montana still being an open range ranching state, where there are more Angus cattle than people. The displacement of cattle grazing for bison and to allow the deer and the antelope to play goes against the cowboy lifestyle. Albeit if the APR eventually opens the lands to hunting, they could become quite popular because more and more private lands are disallowing hunters access which historically had been customarily granted. Eventually, the herds on the APR likely will need culling to keep within the grazing limits of the State and BLM leased land holdings and for good stewardship. I would expect that the APR would enable the tribes to gather meat based on indigenous customs and practices, particularly if the adjoining reservations participate in the preserve scheme.

Montana has a long history of public policy that allows the open roaming of livestock. The vast majority of the state is governed by the “open range” concept, which permits livestock to roam on any land except that which is federally owned or which has been fenced to keep the animals out. You put up fences to keep other's cattle and sheep out of your farms or ranches and yours in, and as to fencing your yards so as to not have beast disturb your crab grass and dandelions. My problem is the darn mule deer jump my tall fences and love to eat the blossoms of my flowers.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by GordMay

We found that boats damage up to 41% of the eelgrass bed, and each boat may cause up to 0.3 ha of damage. These results can be used to inform decisions about anchor-outs by stakeholders and government agencies ...”

LOL, not very likey. Richardson Bay is fairly shallow. the part south of cone Rock, is roughly 10 to 12 feet deep. North of cone Rock it drops quickly down to four or five feet.

The few times I've had anchored in Richardson Bay, I've had 75 feet of rode out. If all that was laying on the bottom that works out to 0.15ha max. Of course not all of it will be laying on the ground so really you're less than .1 hectare acre on average.

For folks east of cone Rock, they have usually less than 50 feet out as it's only about 5 ft deep at mean low water. So the area damaged by each vessel its going to be 3 to 5 times less then indicated in the report. It's simple math. It's easy to do.

Only about 20% of the bay is used by the boats. and obviously not all of that could be damaged. So we can take that "up to 41%" with a large grain of salt also.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by GordMay

From the paper’s Abstract:
“... The purpose of our study was to provide factual evidence for policy makers ....

Consider the the Audubon society has committees that are tasked with deciding "what to study."
Consider that invariably for each topic studied maybe dozens are reviewed but not chosen.
Consider that there are tens of thousands (if not more) solid research proposals on tap at any given time.
Consider the statistical probability that seaweed outside the backdoor of a bunch of rich people's houses made the cut out of the thousands of research topics out there that certainly must include a lot of fuzzy/cuddly looking things that kids have posters of on their walls and/or are more threatened.
Consider that the stated purpose of all such private-funded research findings are always "to fact-find and speak truth to power."

If one believes that seaweed and friends made the cut over cuddly fuzzy things and friends purely for scientific/sustainability reasons...then this is an impasse for analysis.

This is politics and it is almost exclusively biased towards money. That's just how politics and the world works...it's not anti-govt or anti-regulation to point it out.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I
I wish there were more small plane pilots here to recount what occurred with general aviation over the last few decades (at least in the US). Maybe in the 1990s nuisance/user fees started showing up that primarily pinched only the poorest of pilots (insofar as there is such a thing). The poor folks complained while the average pilot...and the rich...didn't seem to care, often siding with the entity charging the fees (for whatever reason). Now things are so expensive that even the rich folks are complaining and there's no one to listen. Little plane aviation is basically no longer affordable to a middle-class person unless it is their exclusive hobby in life.

I don't think that the general public has any more sympathy for a "rich yacht owner" than they do for a "rich airplane owner" (even if the vehicle is 50 years old and costs the same as a new SUV). Do we call it success when the grass is protected and no one can afford to cruise any longer?

Here in Montana, just about every little podunk town has its own well paved and lighted general aviation airport. Which airports do not have public commuting flights into the township, but which are all paid for by each and every property owner by specifically defined purpose mill levies charged on your assessed private property values. I suspect nary one in a thousand local persons ever actually has taken a flight out of those airports. The only persons who use private airplanes are indeed "rich airplane owners" who IMHO should bear the entirety of the cost of such capital and maintenance expensive, and expansive land space requiring facilities, each of which invokes a sizeable ring of restrictive land uses and zonings, impacting neighbors and communities. Air ambulances services are common in the rural areas and are typically accomplished by helicopters landing adjacent to each of the small town hospitals or at rural site so as to provide for transport to a regional healthcare center, and they rarely if ever use an airport to transport a patient. There are a few Search and Rescue organization sponsored helicopters in the state that provide invaluable service across this vast state.

There are 129 cities and towns in Montana which entire state has a total population of just over 1 million. Yet, there are 13 commercial service airports [the thirteenth largest city in Montana has a population of just 7,500]; there are an additional 58 general aviation airports, and 49 other public use airports not listed on NPIAS. The US Forest Service has several of their own for remote access.