anchor-outs have significantly harmed the ecosystem

[a64pilot]

If you care Montana is a center for “Back country flying” every wanna be bush pilot dreams of flying in Montana. General aviation in Montana is not anything close to what it is in the rest of the US.
If you don’t like it, vote it out, but apparently most of your fellow Montana residents wanted it, cause I assume it’s a democracy there and these taxes were voted on.
Like Fl is the center for cave diving

Many places in the US consider having an airport to being essential to business development, you need one of you expect a large business to locate there, if you don’t, then they locate to a place that does.

This is an excellent Montana group I was a member of for years
https://theraf.org

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

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.

Please reference image below of the readily assessable extent of the damage to the eelgrass in just that imaged portion Richardson Bay which grasses if the boats were not anchored or were moored on conservation moorings would be very dense. Your analysis is faulty as to size of damage area, as each boat causes damage and cumulatively the repeated and shifted anchorage locations results in almost contiguous damaged area within that large anchorage. The lack of flora results in a significant drop in the diversity and extent of fauna. The boats basically make a desert. The saying goes that a picture is worth a thousand words. One can see the demarcation of the deeper water Sausalito channel where the dredging occurs and where the undredge recommended anchoring area is.

[PLANET EXPRESS]

In the state of California this may cause cancer.

[Pelagic]

Ok, reading this from the perspective of someone who cruises in Asia where some fishermen still dynamite and poison fish, I am all for protecting the environment, but there are major questiins/decisions to be made for this to work.

1. You can't put mooring balls everywhere and do you really need them on sandy/ muddy bottoms?

Someone mentioned a depth standard, where deeper than that, ell grass was not an issue.

Why not make that universal so you have a choice of convenience to shore via mooring buoy or anchor "Out"

2. If coastal waters are being treated now as Marine Parks then Taxpayer monies should shoulder the bulk of the cost for a transient boat for say 10 days. Longer than that pay, or if a resident an annual fee to cover maintenance ?

It would seem that the marine industry should help to lobby the Government for standard, practical and fair solutions in high density Costal Waters.

By the way, who manages Coasts Waters in the US.
....State or Federal?

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

If you care Montana is a center for “Back country flying” every wanna be bush pilot dreams of flying in Montana. General aviation in Montana is not anything close to what it is in the rest of the US.
If you don’t like it, vote it out, but apparently most of your fellow Montana residents wanted it, cause I assume it’s a democracy there and these taxes were voted on.
Like Fl is the center for cave diving

Many places in the US consider having an airport to being essential to business development, you need one of you expect a large business to locate there, if you don’t, then they locate to a place that does.

This is an excellent Montana group I was a member of for years
https://theraf.org

Ha, Google chose to not locate its second headquarters in Montana as they told me large business do not locate in towns with populations of 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 and attempt to recruit 20,000 to 30,000 employees and the associated support businesses. Such small towns represent the vast majority of the county paid for general aviation airports, albeit the majority of such general aviation facilities are themselves within a one hour drive from one of the 13 commercial service airports. Roughly the same commute time to a big city airport in a major metropolitan area, especially given the freeways provide for 80 mph.

The airports do not provide any significant benefit to the locals, they are typically used by wealthy out of state landowners and vacation home owners, here specifically they are the Lakehome people who arrive for a few weeks or few weekends each year and are absent the rest of the time.

By way of example, there are three general aviation airports in Lake County, Montana all within a distance of 25 miles, of which the largest town being Polson, the county seat at 4,700. There are two regional commercial service airports, one in Missoula and another in Kalispell, less than an hour drive either north or south.

We have many international visitors arrive to our business, many from China; they especially like to come here because it is undeveloped and because they can see stars. Several of the Chinese had never seen stars. And they get very excited when they get to see Griz, or hear the natives singing an honor song for them with pounding a beat on the drums.

As to backcountry airports, there is indeed a truly grand one located across two mountain ranges north east of me. Pilots often need to make multiple low approaches at Montana’s only wilderness airstrip to scare away and avoid elk, deer and bear grazing in their flight path. Built in the 1930s and situated in the Great Bear Wilderness of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, the Schafer Meadows airstrip offers access to the Bob Marshall Wilderness and the wild Middle Fork of the Flathead River. Spectacular country to hike or to ride horses into, or I suspect to fly into for some fly fishing. I have flown over it but not into it. Yet!

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Please reference image below of the readily assessable extent of the damage to the eelgrass in just that imaged portion Richardson Bay which grasses if the boats were not anchored or were moored on conservation moorings would be very dense. Your analysis is faulty as to size of damage area, as each boat causes damage and cumulatively the repeated and shifted anchorage locations results in almost contiguous damaged area within that large anchorage. The lack of flora results in a significant drop in the diversity and extent of fauna. The boats basically make a desert. The saying goes that a picture is worth a thousand words. One can see the demarcation of the deeper water Sausalito channel where the dredging occurs and where the undredge recommended anchoring area is.

I'm so sorry, but my analysis is anything but faulty. I live in the Bay Area and have actually anchored in Richardson Bay. If you check the actual size of Richardson Bay, which is a heck of a lot larger that little photograph you will find out that yes there's only about 20% of the bay that the boats actually anchor.

Why do they do that you ask. Because the fetch is lower and they're closer to the dinghy docks. Plus the Back Bay is very shallow. So no they don't anchor all around the bay. you might know that if you lived here.

Let's do the math shall we. Using the Audubon society's numbers which I think are grossly exaggerated but just to be fair. So two hundred boats x .3 ha equal 60 ha. Richardson Bay Area is 369ha in size. So divide 60 by 369 and you get 16%.

I'm rounding up to 20% because hey yes some people do anchor around but really not that much of the Bay. LLAP.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Ok, reading this from the perspective of someone who cruises in Asia where some fishermen still dynamite and poison fish, I am all for protecting the environment, but there are major questiins/decisions to be made for this to work.



By the way, who manages Coasts Waters in the US.
....State or Federal?

Both have jurisdiction. It is a situation of the United States are, and not the United States is.

General rule:

State Seaward Boundaries in the United States
(0 to 3 Nautical Miles; 0 to 9 Nautical Miles for Texas,
Florida’s Gulf Coast, and Puerto Rico)

In the 1940s, several states claimed jurisdiction over mineral and other resources off their coasts. This was overturned in 1947, when the Supreme Court determined that states had no title to, or property interest in, these resources. In response, the Submerged Lands Act was enacted in 1953 giving coastal states jurisdiction over a region extending 3 nautical miles seaward from the baseline, commonly referred to as state waters. For historical reasons, Texas and the Gulf Coast of Florida are an exception, with state waters extending to 9 nautical miles offshore. (Note: A nautical mile is approximately 6,076 feet. Subsequent legislation granted the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa jurisdiction out to 3 miles,
while Puerto Rico has a 9-mile jurisdictional boundary.

The federal government retains the power to regulate commerce, navigation, power generation, national defense, and international affairs throughout state waters. However, states are given the authority to manage, develop, and lease resources throughout the water column and on and under the seafloor.
(States have similar authorities on the land side of the baseline, usually up to the mean high tide line, an area known as state tidelands.)
In general, states must exercise their authority for the benefit of the public, consistent with the public trust doctrine. Under this doctrine, which has evolved from ancient Roman law and English common law, governments have an obligation to protect the interests of the general public (as opposed to the narrow interests of specific users or any particular group) in tidelands and in the water column and submerged lands below navigable waters.
Public interests have traditionally included navigation, fishing, and commerce. In recent times, the public has also looked to the government to protect their interests in recreation, environmental protection, research, and preservation of scenic beauty and cultural heritage.

The Territorial Sea (0 to 12 Nautical Miles)

Under international law, every coastal nation has sovereignty over the air space, water column, seabed, and subsoil of its territorial sea, subject to certain rights of passage for foreign vessels and, in more limited circumstances, foreign aircraft.
For almost two hundred years, beginning with an assertion by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson in 1793, the United States claimed a territorial sea out to 3 miles. In 1988, President Reagan proclaimed a 12-mile territorial sea for the United States, consistent with provisions in the LOS Convention. The proclamation extended the territorial sea only for purposes of international law, explicitly stating that there was no intention to alter domestic law.

The Federal waters as depicted by the Office of Coast Survey depicts on its nautical charts the territorial sea (12 nautical miles), contiguous zone (24nm), and exclusive economic zone (200nm, plus maritime boundaries with adjacent/opposite countries).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by gamayun

I find arguing that studies/reports/data are all biased and that government regulations are all bad to be very tedious.

I would too, so it's a good thing I've never seen anyone ever argue in such absolute terms. Pointing out bias from an organization or individual doesn't mean that their studies are bogus, only that perhaps they should be subject to a bit more scrutiny before being deemed conclusive. Nobody's arguing that all govt regs are bad.

Everyone and everything has inherent biases and many regulations are burdensome and costly for businesses/people.

Yes. But those burdens & costs often impact poorer people disproportionately. Like sailors who cannot afford moorings or marinas. Hasn't living in or near San Fran already become unobtainable for enough middle class & lower income people? Maybe the same private charitable foundations (i.e. wealthy people who can afford $1M+ avg. home prices) who helped fund the Audubon study can also subsidize the the cost of the moorings?

A64 and others need to move on already

Really? You don't want to even hear the concerns of others who may have cause to question some of these studies? Is there no downside to pushing anchored boats away for the sake of an apparently small portion of the area's eelgrass? What about SailorChic's analysis suggesting that the study's basic calculations may be significantly off?

[Montanan]

The reason the Audubon Society is referenced in the study is that the entire northern end of Richardson Bay is their Bird Sanctuary which is closed to all watercraft even kayaks and water boards from October 1 to March 31st. The Audubon Society have long been the experts and principle stewards of this area. The Audubon Society had the foresight to acquire the headlands and the bay waters in the 1960's.

During a couple of the summer months, I had the privilege to perform biological bottom samples [borings] in that sanctuary area and up into the watershed of that Bay back when I was younger and spent a lot of time on the bay and estuaries having grown up in Marin County and in Piedmont on the east bay. Much time spent on the waters with the Sea Scouts shuttling State and private biologists and with Marine Biology classes at school as well as sailing and fishing. This was all back when Marin County and the Bay Area had much less population and far fewer boats and was ecologically less impacted. Still love to go visit whenever I can during visits to family and friends.

Reference pictures below.

Richardson Bay is a portion of the SF Bay, its southern border is situated between Belvedere / Tiburon and Sausalito.

The anchorage areas are located south of the sanctuary in moderately deeper waters and generally the large number of boats are spread along entirety of the area east of the Sausalito channel and some to the west of the channel. As you can see the active anchorage area covers a substantial part of Richardson Bay. Sausalito is a major attractant for anchoring out as they have dinghy docks and offers many services and the bay is a beautiful place with pleasant climate and out of the major currents. And very affordable especially given the extreme cost of housing in the Bay Area and that part of Marin County.


Ordinance:
The Richardson Bay Regional Agency issued Ordinance 92-1 in order to protect the birds utilizing the sanctuary. It is enforced by the Marin County Sheriff Department.

Importance:
Migratory ducks, grebes, loons and shorebirds use the Bay while they over-winter right here in Bay Area. or for re-fueling on their journeys south. Unfortunately, some species of waterbirds have shown significant declines over the last 50 years, including Surf Scoter and Lesser Scaup. Due to its critical importance to these birds, Richardson Bay has been designated as a Globally Important Bird Area by Bird Life International and the National Audubon Society.

Boundaries (see map:
Approximately 900 acres [369 hectacres] of bay waters are covered, extending from the edge of the Cove housing complex to the southern tip of Strawberry Point, east to Belvedere and north to Blackie’s Pasture. The Sanctuary boundaries are marked with signs on pilings and buoys.

Terms:
No boats, including non-motorized boats such as kayaks, paddleboards, canoes or sailboats are allowed within the Sanctuary waters during this critical season for migratory waterbirds. Even a single kayak paddling slowly through can flush hundreds of birds.

[Montanan]

Ahha, I see the glimmer of reasonable solution being proposed in this thread.

Quote:

Yes. But those burdens & costs often impact poorer people disproportionately. Like sailors who cannot afford moorings or marinas. Hasn't living in or near San Fran already become unobtainable for enough middle class & lower income people? Maybe the same private charitable foundations (i.e. wealthy people who can afford $1M+ avg. home prices) who helped fund the Audubon study can also subsidize the the cost of the moorings?

It does seem very reasonable to raise donations to install ecological moorings using hydraulic equipment on a small barge to install screw moorings using floatable rode so as to mitigate against scouring the bottom and damaging the sealife. And then to keep the cost of such mooring to a modest monthly fee, albeit each of the boats should be regularly inspected as to having the appropriate holding tanks and the maintenance of sealed shut off drainage outlets and be required to use and document the use of pump out stations so as to regulate against discharge into that crowded bay. Say somewhere between not free but not adversely high in cost either. The cost of mooring should avail funding for periodic maintenance and replacement of the conservation moorings and also cover the cost of the use of pump out station upkeep and municipal sewage treatment utility fees. There should be no additional cost of using a pump out station and a potable water intake station for boats on the Richardson Bay moorings so as to encourage the use of the sewage and avoidance of discharge into the bay. And there should be a maximum number of long term moorings [a cap], so that the bay doesn't increase from say 150 to 200 vessels to become 500 or 1,000 vessels. Derelict, non-compliant and non-utilized boats should be promptly removed from the moorings; the cost of such removals, disposals and oversight regulation should be paid by the rent on the moorings.

Essentially basic user fees, just as one has when staying at campsites in public parks. Bu way of reference, I see that boat launch fees at California parks run about $7.00 to $10 and parking generally is $10 per day.

And there should be conservation moorings available for use only by transient vessels which could be charged a somewhat higher transient mooring fee, as it costs money to administer the collect and process transactions and regulating the length of time and the frequency of use of such transient usage.

One can place a lot more boats on moorings than on anchorage in a given space, a three or four to one scope is viable, got to check on the tide ranges and do such without major ecological damage from heavy local use.

[sailorchic34]

I must be living on a different planet. The average home price in Sausalito is $1.3 million. Not quite the Bastion of affordability one would think of. Let's not even talk about Belvedere or Strawberry folk, who look down their nose on the poor people in Sausalito, that live in homes.

As far as the bird sanctuary area, most of it is 2 ft deep at mean low water. Not really a boating destination anyway.

Mind you when anchored in January some years back to witness the Herring run where flocks of hundreds of pelicans have a feast, I didn't really notice any birds hanging out in the Back Bay. At least not anymore than in the front Bay. Most birds in the know flock to the marshes of Sonoma and Solano counties. I saw a hundred thousand Birds in San Pablo Bay.

I stand completely by my numbers. As far as Mooring costs go they were talking at one point of $200 a month. Most of the folks living in Richardson Bay are pretty much down and out and couldn't afford $200 a month. That's okay let's just keep them all on the shore and they can be homeless there. Because birds are more important than people.

I'm all for for being environmentally friendly. Through at the same time I don't want to see people made homeless who are more or less self-supporting themselves at the moment. Currently there aren't 200 live aboard slips available in the entire Bay Area. In reality there is most likely less than 10. So in reality they have nowhere to go.

So where do the anchor outs in Richardson Bay go. Putting them on the streets and making them homeless doesn't sound like a very nice thing to do.

edit: using a floating Rode, on Moorings, I don't see that being a good idea. It would be way too easy to get that floating Rode wrapped on a prop. that would ruin somebody's day.

[RaymondR]

This is an image of Thompsons Bay Rotnest Island of the coast of Fremantle in Western Australia. The area to the left of the land backed wharf is the permanent mooring area and to the right the casual anchoring area.

Either the seagrass is not being as badly damaged by the casual anchoring or the seagrass is recovering quicker. Both moorings and anchorage is mainly used during weekends.

[senormechanico]

Eelgrass is a very quick growing plant.
In the PNW, it's been compared to blackberry bushes.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Eelgrass is a very quick growing plant.
In the PNW, it's been compared to blackberry bushes.

Indeed.
As the authors state:
"... 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..."

* “Epifaunal” means the (invertebrate) species regularly, or always, occur on the blades of eelgrass (rather than associated with sediment).

[Tetepare]

Most well meaning organizations, whether government or NGO, start with a good idea then morph into a self-centered economy with the primary focus being on the growth and power of the organization. UN, CITES, Red Cross, NRA, etc. all exist today with the primary focus being the subsidy and empowerment of the organization first, and the purported goal being secondary.

Thus everything they do must be suspect. To determine why something happens, follow the money. Figure out who will profit from it, and work backwards to figure out what has been excluded, omitted, or ignored in the process. Armed with that, one can typically determine if such activities are holistically truthful or not. In almost all cases the answer is “not”