Richardson Bay liveaboards, heads up!

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Wrong

A correction is in order. The City of Sausalito's newsletter is the 'Sausalito Currents' not the 'Marin Scope'.

This. Helps sometimes to read more than you are inclined to read...

[Wrong]

[QUOTE=ASD;1960390]

Originally Posted by tomtom

mmm Go figure. After looking at the radar image posted too, we had the same issue. I am all for the new mooring field....

Is your boat in a marina? Looking forward to grabbing a mooring in order to cut your costs? Think you're going to be able to continue living aboard on a mooring? Good luck!

[Schooner Chandlery]

Something that should be so simple is just so hard: If the USCG would just inspect and cite the vessels for not being in compliance with applicable safety regulations...the derelicts could perhaps be moved...if while they were at it, they also took note of any other illegal activities, perhaps more problem boats could be moved. It sounds like it's already well within the jurisdiction of the locals (per the CFR) to put in place ordinances about the use of the boats at anchor--that would imply that they can do what Pillar Point Harbor has on the books (but doesn't enforce unfortunately) which is put a requirement in that anchored boats cannot be unattended in specified times (in PPH it's during winter months, in other places it's night time hours...) then unattended boats could be cited and removed.

It really doesn't SEEM like they need to do anything at all in that federal anchorage except apply the existing regulations and maybe put an ordinance in that requires anchored boats to have someone aboard at night. About the local liveaboard population--I do know the State Land Commission has authority (given by the federal government to them) for those waters and the CA SLC doesn't permit people to permanently homestead on (submerged) public lands. So--at some point, they'll probably be exercising their responsibilities to keep the commons for traveling boats. IMO it'd just be nice if the USCG, local authorities, or someone would get rid of the derelicts.

If the derelicts and unattended boats were gone--that would free up a lot of good anchoring space and reduce a NEED for moorings at all. Right now, the line up of derelict boats are about as tight as a bunch of moored boats--and as a matter of fact they ARE moored because there's many sitting on two or more anchors solidly in a single spot.

While I like using moorings when there's a well maintained mooring field that has moorings sufficient to accommodate my 30T boat--we've got 69' ft sparred length (when the shipping bowsprit is out--and since the anchor roller is on the sprit, it's out when we're on a mooring) and we seldom find a mooring field that has been set up for our size and tonnage (in the USA) although I'll say we enjoyed some very nice moorings put out by the US Forest Service in the Misty Fjords National Monument in AK. Way heavy duty. So, since we typically can't get onto a mooring AND we note that as soon as a mooring field goes in there's a bunch of local boaters who take the moorings, set up a waiting list, and prevent cruisers from getting a mooring...I'm not really in favor of moorings anywhere unless there is ALSO a nice big anchorage in the vicinity for visiting cruising boats.

It was my understanding, when we visited Richardson Bay this summer, that the proposed mooring field was going to be pretty small and on the town side of the channel over in that anchorage which is full of private moorings or permanently anchored boats on the path towards the fuel dock. That's pretty small and certainly won't physically impact the large federal anchorage on the other side of the channel.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

Something that should be so simple is just so hard: If the USCG would just inspect and cite the vessels for not being in compliance with applicable safety regulations...the derelicts could perhaps be moved...if while they were at it, they also took note of any other illegal activities, perhaps more problem boats could be moved. It sounds like it's already well within the jurisdiction of the locals (per the CFR) to put in place ordinances about the use of the boats at anchor--that would imply that they can do what Pillar Point Harbor has on the books (but doesn't enforce unfortunately) which is put a requirement in that anchored boats cannot be unattended in specified times (in PPH it's during winter months, in other places it's night time hours...) then unattended boats could be cited and removed.

Good comments. I'd like to add, if I believed it could be done allowing only 'owner occupied' boats in Richardson Bay would cure most of the issues. But, the RBRA does not have the authority under the RC to restrict or prohibit anchoring. Can't restrict those owners with unattended boats any more than giving special privelege to live aboards. Catch 22. Still, I don't want to see the RBRA with that authority anyway!

It really doesn't SEEM like they need to do anything at all in that federal anchorage except apply the existing regulations and maybe put an ordinance in that requires anchored boats to have someone aboard at night. About the local liveaboard population--I do know the State Land Commission has authority (given by the federal government to them) for those waters and the CA SLC doesn't permit people to permanently homestead on (submerged) public lands. So--at some point, they'll probably be exercising their responsibilities to keep the commons for traveling boats. IMO it'd just be nice if the USCG, local authorities, or someone would get rid of the derelicts.

Most of the boats in the Bay are of the unattended, abandoned, purchased with resale at a profit in mind and derelicts. So, you're on the mark regarding the need to get rid of these boats. But, the RBRA staff garners a lot more sympathy for their myths and exaggerations by letting the problems grow and fester. Justification for their 'mooring field without amenities'. So, abatement and enforcement activity remains dormant while they push for the moorings.

If the derelicts and unattended boats were gone--that would free up a lot of good anchoring space and reduce a NEED for moorings at all. Right now, the line up of derelict boats are about as tight as a bunch of moored boats--and as a matter of fact they ARE moored because there's many sitting on two or more anchors solidly in a single spot.

Precisely.

While I like using moorings when there's a well maintained mooring field that has moorings sufficient to accommodate my 30T boat--we've got 69' ft sparred length (when the shipping bowsprit is out--and since the anchor roller is on the sprit, it's out when we're on a mooring) and we seldom find a mooring field that has been set up for our size and tonnage (in the USA) although I'll say we enjoyed some very nice moorings put out by the US Forest Service in the Misty Fjords National Monument in AK. Way heavy duty. So, since we typically can't get onto a mooring AND we note that as soon as a mooring field goes in there's a bunch of local boaters who take the moorings, set up a waiting list, and prevent cruisers from getting a mooring...I'm not really in favor of moorings anywhere unless there is ALSO a nice big anchorage in the vicinity for visiting cruising boats.

There are two reasons I'm in this fight to stop the moorings. First, their plan is to ensure boats entering Richardson will be 'short term visitors or on a ball'. In other words, no local or cruisers anchorage. I'm not going to accept this scenario and am prepared to go to jail by civil disobedience in order to establish 'standing' in a court of law so their actions can be properly adjudicated! The other reason is I care about the people on the boats in Richardson Bay, value their right to choose their lifestyle and whether to anchor or rent a mooring as much as I value my own right to choose.

It was my understanding, when we visited Richardson Bay this summer, that the proposed mooring field was going to be pretty small and on the town side of the channel over in that anchorage which is full of private moorings or permanently anchored boats on the path towards the fuel dock. That's pretty small and certainly won't physically impact the large federal anchorage on the other side of the channel.

No. The plan is for 100 moorings, presumably in the federal anchorage somewhere. But, since we haven't been given more information by the RBRA that by all measure is determined to minimize opposition to their idea of a mooring field, who really knows? Clerk for the RBRA Ben Berto is violating every rule in the book regarding my request for public records.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Good comments. I'd like to add, if I believed it could be done allowing only 'owner occupied' boats in Richardson Bay would cure most of the issues. But, the RBRA does not have the authority under the RC to restrict or prohibit anchoring. Can't restrict those owners with unattended boats any more than giving special privelege to live aboards. Catch 22. Still, I don't want to see the RBRA with that authority anyway!

But you posted this (below) earlier from the CFR and it shows that indeed the locals (RBRA) do have the authority to establish and enforce local ordinances about the ANCHORING and USE of anchored and moored vessels. That means the RBRA can make funky rules about anchor 1 day per year if they fee like it and they can make ordinances that prevent people from living aboard anchored boats, they can require people to stay aboard 24/7 while anchored (they do this in Newport Beach Harbor at the tiny anchorage at the end of Lido Island, for example) or they can require anything they feel like in terms of "use" because that's pretty broad.

You seem to have a thing for "owner occupied" and that's really not necessary to safety. "Occupied" might be, yes, by a mariner capable of getting the boat underway if needed. That need not be the owner.

Originally Posted by Wrong

"§ 110.126a San Francisco Bay, Calif.
Richardson Bay Anchorage. That portion of Richardson Bay, north of a line bearing 257° from Peninsula Point to the shore at Sausalito, except for federally-maintained channels, and all channels approved for private use therein.
Note:
Mariners anchoring in the special anchorage area should consult applicable ordinances of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency and the County of Marin. These ordinances establish requirements on matters including the anchoring of vessels, placement of moorings, and use of anchored and moored vessels within the special anchorage area. Information on these local agency requirements may be obtained from the Richardson Bay Harbor Administrator.
[CGFR 69-109, 34 FR 17771, Nov. 4, 1969, as amended by CGD 78-126, 45 FR 10760, Feb. 19, 1980; CGD11-99-009, 65 FR 20086, Apr. 14, 2000]"

Originally Posted by Wrong

Most of the boats in the Bay are of the unattended, abandoned, purchased with resale at a profit in mind and derelicts. So, you're on the mark regarding the need to get rid of these boats. But, the RBRA staff garners a lot more sympathy for their myths and exaggerations by letting the problems grow and fester. Justification for their 'mooring field without amenities'. So, abatement and enforcement activity remains dormant while they push for the moorings.

Agree with the fact that the locals aren't bothering to use the tools they have already to do enforcement. This is another case where boaters should turn to the Federal government for preemption of state regulation or State for overrule of local ordinances--by pointing to the arbitrary and capricious way that locals choose to enforce existing ordinances but yet go out of their way to make more ordinances. The effect of ordinance after ordinance is to essentially "clear" the waters of ALL boaters in many cases--not the intent of the Federal regulations, at all. I know boaters don't typically like the Federal government--but at least there's a higher level of accountability there than in the local governments that are often elected by and supported by particular non-boating special interests.

Originally Posted by Wrong

There are two reasons I'm in this fight to stop the moorings. First, their plan is to ensure boats entering Richardson will be 'short term visitors or on a ball'. In other words, no local or cruisers anchorage. I'm not going to accept this scenario and am prepared to go to jail by civil disobedience in order to establish 'standing' in a court of law so their actions can be properly adjudicated! The other reason is I care about the people on the boats in Richardson Bay, value their right to choose their lifestyle and whether to anchor or rent a mooring as much as I value my own right to choose.

No. The plan is for 100 moorings, presumably in the federal anchorage somewhere. But, since we haven't been given more information by the RBRA that by all measure is determined to minimize opposition to their idea of a mooring field, who really knows? Clerk for the RBRA Ben Berto is violating every rule in the book regarding my request for public records.

Federal anchorages ARE for short term visitors (that could be months not days, but still they're for mariners/vessels in transit rather than permanent residents). If someone puts mooring balls in a federally designated anchorage... even that needs to happen in such a way that it doesn't block transiting vessels (cruisers) from using the anchorage.

There are multiple control zones/jurisdictions in that area. The Federal anchorage is in the control of the SLC and they actually have some hard and fast rules in support of the public trust doctrine that precludes them from allowing liveaboards to stay in one spot (e.g. on a mooring) in a navigable waterway so if I were a local liveaboard I'd be a little worried if the moorings were intended to be in the anchorage area because of that additional CA SLC oversight. The waters where the city of Sausalito has jurisdiction have different wiggle room for the state to ignore the liveaboard issues. Whereas anchored boats can always be presumed to come and go--once they're on a mooring, fixed, with someone living aboard, it is very clear that they're really someone homesteading on the submerged public lands--totally a no-no per the public trust doctrine. Makes my head hurt.

It is clear that you wish to continue your own way of life in Richardson Bay--I figure you're a liveaboard at anchor there, right? We all have self-interest, of course, and it is easier to be objective when the proposed rules/ordinances don't greatly impact us in a negative way. So, you're fighting for the right to stay there as a liveaboard and that's a little different than the right for a cruiser to stay in an anchorage for some extended period before moving on. Cruisers do benefit when rules allow liveabords but in high cost of living areas like the San Francisco Bay, the cruisers are typically DISPLACED by liveaboards who consume all the permissible options for people who (cruise or not) live aboard their boats.

We, as traveling cruisers can just leave and travel up and down the coast (or around the world) dealing with anchoring restrictions by moving along and coming back another month, another year, another decade --and can have an impact on how local governments and local boaters are encroaching upon the navigable waterways/the commons and displacing cruisers, as transiting vessels, by sending letters to the State and Federal policy makers expressing our views about the use of the particular anchorages--including the lack of enforcement of existing ordinances in Richardson Bay and the impact permanently moored boats (in mooring fields or at anchor) have on cruisers. In the state of California, the entity to send an opinion to is the California State Land Commission. You can send a letter to the Commissioners and staffers expressing your opinions and concerns about the Federal Anchorage. I'd encourage any/all cruisers to send a letter or email regarding Richardson Bay. You can get the correct email and mailing addresses as well as dates of the Commissioner meetings by contacting the SLC here Contact Us

My own focus would be
1. The Federal Anchor is there to serve traveling vessels--cruisers like me but the existing glut of abandoned boats makes it hard to use.
2. The local authorities are not enforcing the ordinances they have but they're seeking to change/restrict anchoring further in such a way that almost certainly local boats will displace the needs of traveling vessels even more so.
3. Request that any mooring field installed be done where it does not impede the anchoring of cruising boats in sheltered waters that are still of reasonable depth for the anchoring of a range of cruising boats.

I note that current anchoring available to cruisers is in unsheltered waters at the out-most edge of Richardson Bay or in very shallow waters far into the Bay as the glut of abandoned boats and liveaboard vessels sits in the middle and/or on the Sausalito side of the channel which isn't IN the Federal Anchoage.

If enough cruising boats contacted the CA SLC (forget about the Federal government at this point) it undoubtedly would help inform the decision process about the use--by all mariners--of the federal anchorage in Richardson Bay and help prevent the area from being managed to the specification of nearby land-dwellers or local boaters alone.

[Wrong]

Schooner Chandlery,

If I understand you correctly. And you've asserted so much about various issues in a sort of mish mash, I find what you say hard to follow, so I may not understand... I have voyaged in the manner you are accustomed to, and consider any suggestion to the effect federal, yeah any anchorage is intended for we bluewater sailors alone is simply wrong. Or, that we have first right over all other boaters. Most places I've sailed to have moorings. But the moorings are not highly organized and are privately owned, having been installed following issuance of a government permit. Australia and French Polynesia are good examples. If your boat is small enough, and provided there's room anchoring amidst the moorings doesn't normally raise the ire of owners of nearby moored boats. Try that in the U.S... The difference is, in Australia and French Polynesia there is no accompanying ban on anchoring like there is in the US intended to ensure municipally owned moorings get used. Moorings are installed one-off by owners who will use them.

I disagree with your assertion the RBRA can create any funky ordinance they want if it ultimately means you are prohibited by it from anchoring in the Bay. The CFR doesn't say anything of the sort. The RBRA can suggest where you should anchor and by ordinance can ask you to move to a different spot. But, they do not have any authority to prevent you from anchoring or from using your boat in the Bay. How, yes.

I suggest you consult the RBRA ordinances begininning with 87-1 up through 91-3 before jumping to conclusions in regard to what the RBRA can and cannot do.

By the way, and some who frequent this forum don't like me to repeat this, but it's germane to this conversation. I'm a 27 year liveaboard and have sailed mostly alone, two near global circumnavigations. Near, because I trucked my boat back to California both times from Texas rather than transit the Canal.

[ASD]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

But you posted this (below) earlier from the CFR and it shows that indeed the locals (RBRA) do have the authority to establish and enforce local ordinances about the ANCHORING and USE of anchored and moored vessels. That means the RBRA can make funky rules about anchor 1 day per year if they fee like it and they can make ordinances that prevent people from living aboard anchored boats, they can require people to stay aboard 24/7 while anchored (they do this in Newport Beach Harbor at the tiny anchorage at the end of Lido Island, for example) or they can require anything they feel like in terms of "use" because that's pretty broad.

You seem to have a thing for "owner occupied" and that's really not necessary to safety. "Occupied" might be, yes, by a mariner capable of getting the boat underway if needed. That need not be the owner.





Agree with the fact that the locals aren't bothering to use the tools they have already to do enforcement. This is another case where boaters should turn to the Federal government for preemption of state regulation or State for overrule of local ordinances--by pointing to the arbitrary and capricious way that locals choose to enforce existing ordinances but yet go out of their way to make more ordinances. The effect of ordinance after ordinance is to essentially "clear" the waters of ALL boaters in many cases--not the intent of the Federal regulations, at all. I know boaters don't typically like the Federal government--but at least there's a higher level of accountability there than in the local governments that are often elected by and supported by particular non-boating special interests.




Federal anchorages ARE for short term visitors (that could be months not days, but still they're for mariners/vessels in transit rather than permanent residents). If someone puts mooring balls in a federally designated anchorage... even that needs to happen in such a way that it doesn't block transiting vessels (cruisers) from using the anchorage.

There are multiple control zones/jurisdictions in that area. The Federal anchorage is in the control of the SLC and they actually have some hard and fast rules in support of the public trust doctrine that precludes them from allowing liveaboards to stay in one spot (e.g. on a mooring) in a navigable waterway so if I were a local liveaboard I'd be a little worried if the moorings were intended to be in the anchorage area because of that additional CA SLC oversight. The waters where the city of Sausalito has jurisdiction have different wiggle room for the state to ignore the liveaboard issues. Whereas anchored boats can always be presumed to come and go--once they're on a mooring, fixed, with someone living aboard, it is very clear that they're really someone homesteading on the submerged public lands--totally a no-no per the public trust doctrine. Makes my head hurt.

It is clear that you wish to continue your own way of life in Richardson Bay--I figure you're a liveaboard at anchor there, right? We all have self-interest, of course, and it is easier to be objective when the proposed rules/ordinances don't greatly impact us in a negative way. So, you're fighting for the right to stay there as a liveaboard and that's a little different than the right for a cruiser to stay in an anchorage for some extended period before moving on. Cruisers do benefit when rules allow liveabords but in high cost of living areas like the San Francisco Bay, the cruisers are typically DISPLACED by liveaboards who consume all the permissible options for people who (cruise or not) live aboard their boats.

We, as traveling cruisers can just leave and travel up and down the coast (or around the world) dealing with anchoring restrictions by moving along and coming back another month, another year, another decade --and can have an impact on how local governments and local boaters are encroaching upon the navigable waterways/the commons and displacing cruisers, as transiting vessels, by sending letters to the State and Federal policy makers expressing our views about the use of the particular anchorages--including the lack of enforcement of existing ordinances in Richardson Bay and the impact permanently moored boats (in mooring fields or at anchor) have on cruisers. In the state of California, the entity to send an opinion to is the California State Land Commission. You can send a letter to the Commissioners and staffers expressing your opinions and concerns about the Federal Anchorage. I'd encourage any/all cruisers to send a letter or email regarding Richardson Bay. You can get the correct email and mailing addresses as well as dates of the Commissioner meetings by contacting the SLC here Contact Us

My own focus would be
1. The Federal Anchor is there to serve traveling vessels--cruisers like me but the existing glut of abandoned boats makes it hard to use.
2. The local authorities are not enforcing the ordinances they have but they're seeking to change/restrict anchoring further in such a way that almost certainly local boats will displace the needs of traveling vessels even more so.
3. Request that any mooring field installed be done where it does not impede the anchoring of cruising boats in sheltered waters that are still of reasonable depth for the anchoring of a range of cruising boats.

I note that current anchoring available to cruisers is in unsheltered waters at the out-most edge of Richardson Bay or in very shallow waters far into the Bay as the glut of abandoned boats and liveaboard vessels sits in the middle and/or on the Sausalito side of the channel which isn't IN the Federal Anchoage.

If enough cruising boats contacted the CA SLC (forget about the Federal government at this point) it undoubtedly would help inform the decision process about the use--by all mariners--of the federal anchorage in Richardson Bay and help prevent the area from being managed to the specification of nearby land-dwellers or local boaters alone.

A good thoughtful posting. Thank you for doing so. It helps me understand the issue a little better and I will be sending an email with my concerns.

[ASD]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Schooner Chandlery,

If I understand you correctly. And you've asserted so much about various issues in a sort of mish mash, I find what you say hard to follow, so I may not understand... I have voyaged in the manner you are accustomed to, and consider any suggestion to the effect federal, yeah any anchorage is intended for we bluewater sailors alone is simply wrong. Or, that we have first right over all other boaters. Most places I've sailed to have moorings. But the moorings are not highly organized and are privately owned, having been installed following issuance of a government permit. Australia and French Polynesia are good examples. If your boat is small enough, and provided there's room anchoring amidst the moorings doesn't normally raise the ire of owners of nearby moored boats. Try that in the U.S... The difference is, in Australia and French Polynesia there is no accompanying ban on anchoring like there is in the US intended to ensure municipally owned moorings get used. Moorings are installed one-off by owners who will use them.

I disagree with your assertion the RBRA can create any funky ordinance they want if it ultimately means you are prohibited by it from anchoring in the Bay. The CFR doesn't say anything of the sort. The RBRA can suggest where you should anchor and by ordinance can ask you to move to a different spot. But, they do not have any authority to prevent you from anchoring or from using your boat in the Bay. How, yes.

I suggest you consult the RBRA ordinances begininning with 87-1 up through 91-3 before jumping to conclusions in regard to what the RBRA can and cannot do.

By the way, and some who frequent this forum don't like me to repeat this, but it's germane to this conversation. I'm a 27 year liveaboard and have sailed mostly alone, two near global circumnavigations. Near, because I trucked my boat back to California both times from Texas rather than transit the Canal.

Well if the RBRA installs the mooring field with the restrictions you are stating, I guess you could take them to court and try that route.......

[Schooner Chandlery]

"Wrong" -- you speak as someone coming from the local, liveaboard perspective. That's what you seem to be representing--and earlier you talked about spending years there in Richardson Bay so I thought that was where you were coming from.

No, please do not think that I was saying bluewater sailors have precedence over other sailors--I did not. The issue is that vessels in transit are the ones these federal anchorages were set up for. Those vessels in transit may be cruisers, tow boats, shipping traffic, mega-yachts, or sailors who are traveling shorter distances (e.g. someone coming into the Bay from their slip or mooring in Pillar Point or Bodega Bay or whatever. The whole reason for the navigable waterways to be treated as "commons" is to provide, loosely, these "travelers" with a place to anchor or transit. I'm not keen to define "vessel in transit" because I think it should be pretty loose. Boats that anchor in one place for many years with people aboard who have local jobs, vote locally, etc...those are probably not ones that people would generally call vessels in transit.

The same CFR that you think doesn't allow local ordinances to be restrictive on anchoring allows each and every anchoring restriction that cruisers dislike in the USA--everywhere local ordinances are encroaching upon the use of the navigable waterways/submerged public lands by vessels in transit. You complained about San Diego--how do you think that all transpired? They actually removed the A8 federal anchorage and much of the arguments used in justification for doing so could be used in Richardson Bay--whether it is true or not, those arguments will be used: derelict boats, liveaboards in the navigable waterways, in the way of racers who want to use the space, you name it. The major difference between San Diego's A8 and Richardson Bay is that the A8 was a backwater way far away from any useful services to transiting vessels--the only people who really used it were ones who had access to transportation locally, so the local boating community/liveaboard community. That was an additional excuse to close it. In Richardson Bay, it is different--very convenient to the Golden Gate and ideal for transiting vessels to drop the hook there.

If I were a local liveaboard interested in continuing to live outside of a slip in Sausalito, I'd be looking for a mooring in the areas controlled by Sausalito and I'd be pushing Sausalito to make their mooring field in the field of private moorings in the protected area (where I originally thought it was going to be) between the...ACE dock and the fuel dock. We talked with people on the private moorings "illegal" as the officials call them, and those folks said they were promised first dibs on the moorings that eventually go in--I never dreamed those first dibs were for moorings in the Federal Anchorage...hum...

[Wrong]

Schooner Chandlery,

If you read the applicable "33 CFR Part 110 - ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS Subpart A Special anchorage areas" I posted earlier, there is nothing generic about it. It applies specifically to Richardson Bay, and RBRA authority is express, not implied in any way. Even if they asked, I seriously doubt the Federal government would give the RBRA authority to prohibit and or restrict anchoring there. RICHARDSON BAY IS THE LAST SPECIAL ANCHORAGE IN THE BAY AREA. All others are said to be closed. In fact, if things go as hoped in the future our success in Richardson Bay may lead to reopening now closed anchorages. Depends upon what kind of precedent can be set.

As for ASD and his ilk. How a person can be so overcome by another's life style living at anchor on a boat to aggressively try to make life difficult for them is hard to imagine. I wonder too, how a cruiser like you who may hope to find safe anchorage in Sausalito some day would encourage them?

By the way, I moved between anchorages in San Diego Bay successfully keeping ahead of the boat police in 1999-2000 by a day or so. Figured out since they didn't work on Sunday, we could stretch the time limits between anchorages. By the time I returned to San Diego in 2005 it was all over, restrictions in place an A-8 closed... To a certain extent the San Diego experience motivates me to resist the RBRA idea of 100 moorings even more.

As to any 'promises' the RBRA makes concerning who'll have priority getting a mooring, take with a grain of salt.

[sailorchic34]

Last time I was anchored in Sausolito, a few weeks back, I counted roughly 150 boats at anchor or moored in Richardson bay. It might be 170 as the ones close to shore were hard to count or as little as 145.

Assuming RBRA places 100 mooring balls somewhere in the bay, I can see where 50-70 folks (well OK some boats are empty) will be asked to leave. That's before a single space is allocated for vessels in transit. My guess based on the number of anchor lights I saw that there were 6-8 vessels in transit in the bay, mainly at the south side of the bay. That is nicer boats that looked like they were on their way south.

I'm thinking there is probably space easily for 50-75 more boats in the bay, in the deep parts anyway. I've never had a problem finding a spot to drop the hook.

In any event there is still space for vessels in transit to anchor as it now stands. Current RBRA policy allows for up to 3 months anchoring with permit.

Part of the issue is that more folks are moving to boats as rents in the bay area skyrocket. An average 2 bedroom apartment in Sausolito is #3600/month. More then $4500 for a one bedroom in SF.

The other issue is forcing the rich folk on the hill to look down on the poor boating folks. They consider anyone who owns a boat, of less then 100 feet to be "the problem poor."

So while vessels in transit may not see their self's as a problem, To the people on da hill with $20 million, 9000 sf home, all boaters are a problem.

[Schooner Chandlery]

When I say the same CFR I mean the same Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the same people in the federal government providing oversight of all the subparts of the CFR as they relate to anchoring--certainly each federal anchorage has it's own particulars that are referenced but overall--it's the same CFR we're all dealing with and it's being used to pretty consistently let the vessels that transit the USA down, IMO.

You know--about that anchoring with a permit--we were aware, from reading online, that a permit was supposed to be required to anchor so when we came into Richardson Bay the first week of July, we stayed in the outer boondocks for a few days of chop along with a handful of other cruising boats then moved much closer in among the permanently anchored boats and we contacted the RBRA about our position. We got an earful from the fellow about all the illegal moorings, permanent boats, yada yada and when I pressed and asked if we needed to do anything, change anything where we were (I gave him our boat name, description, lat/long) he said no, nothing and then just kept complaining. It was a strange conversation.

I don't know why boaters think that it is the wealthier folks that dislike all boats anchored in the Bay. It is my observation in most places it's the same--that people who are middle class just scraping by and paying the high rents are the ones who resent the liveaboards in particular. The people with $20M homes, nah, its not them so much stirring up trouble for boaters. They've got better things to stir the pot about. They all seem to stir a pot and the old saying of ... rolls down hill applies here as well.

Seeing oneself as a problem? I don't see commercial shipping as a problem even though most land based folks find it ugly on their waterfront. Things that are supposed to be on the water--boats--are all good from my perspective. We cruisers are very lucky that the public trust doctrine allows us this traveling lifestyle, indeed.


PS
The A8 situation was sad indeed. The A8 didn't close until after 2006--maybe in the 2009 timeframe when the last hold-outs left... because we'd gone to San Diego to rebuild our boat (8/2006) and it was open..and I recall one of the fellows who worked hard to fight it was still fighting the fight in at least 2008.

[Wrong]

FYI.

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 73 (Friday, April 14, 2000)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 20085-20086] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 00-9219] ================================================== ===================== ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Coast Guard 33 CFR PART 110 [CGD11-99-009] RIN 2115-AA98 Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the regulations for the special anchorage area in Richardson Bay, adjacent to San Francisco Bay, California by modifying the explanatory note accompanying the designation of the special anchorage. This explanatory information is provided at the request of local authorities and is intended to facilitate safe navigation by calling mariners' attention to local regulations governing the anchorage area. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on May 15, 2000. ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in this preamble are available for inspection and copying at Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, San Francisco Bay, Building 14, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501. Normal office hours are between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Andrew Cheney, Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, telephone (510) 437-2770. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History On January 11, 2000 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation in the Federal Register (65 FR 1581). The comment period ended on March 13, 2000. The Coast Guard received one comment on the proposal, which is addressed below. A public hearing was not requested and no hearing was held. The Coast Guard is revising the ``Note'' accompanying the special anchorage regulations, 33 CFR 110.126a, for San Francisco Bay. This rule will amend the explanatory information provided regarding local authority and requirements. A special anchorage is an area where vessels less than 20 meters in length are not required to make sound signals while anchored or display anchor lights as would otherwise be required under the Navigation Rules. Richardson Bay was designated a special anchorage area in 1969, and the regulations were amended in 1980. The special anchorage designation is marked on the chart of the area and referenced in the Coast Pilot for the convenience of mariners. Local authorities also exercise jurisdiction over this water area and have enacted ordinances further regulating vessel activity. These local authorities have encountered confusion on the part of mariners about the applicable requirements and the concurrent exercise of authority by both federal and local entities. The Richardson Bay Regional Agency asked the Coast Guard to update the explanatory note accompanying the Federal anchorage regulations regarding the existence of local authority and ordinances. The Coast Guard believes that providing accurate and current information regarding applicable authority and requirements would be in the best interest of safe and efficient navigation. This amendment to the regulation does not alter the special anchorage area designation or change the dimensions of the anchorage area. Discussion of Comments One comment was received in favor of the amendment to the anchorage regulations. The commenter felt that the change to the explanatory note would help clarify jurisdiction over the waters of Richardson Bay, and that it would provide direction to the public regarding appropriate use of the [[Page 20086]] anchorage area. The Coast Guard has not made any changes to the proposed rule. The sole commenter did not request a public hearing, and none was scheduled or held. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). Due to the mainly administrative nature of this change, the Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of Department of Transportation is unnecessary. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard must consider whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small entities'' may include small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are not dominant in their respective fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000. For the same reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on any substantial number of entities, regardless of their size. Assistance for Small Entities In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rule making process. If your small business or organization is affected by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Andrew Cheney at the address contained in the paragraph entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Collection of Information This regulation contains no collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). Federalism The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications under that order. Environmental Assessment The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this regulation and concluded that under Chapter 2.B.2. of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, Figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), it will have no significant environmental impact and it is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. Unfunded Mandates Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), the Coast Guard must consider whether this rule will result in an annual expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation). If so, the Act requires that a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives be considered, and that from those alternatives, the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule be selected. No state, local, or tribal government entities will be affected by this rule, so this rule will not result in annual or aggregate costs of $100 million or more. Therefore, the Coast Guard is exempt from any further regulatory requirements under the Unfunded Mandates Act. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of this Order to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. Regulation In consideration of the foregoing, the Coast Guard amends Subpart A of Part 110, Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 110--[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 49 CFR 1.46; and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g). Sec. 110.126 [Amended] 2. The ``Note'' following Section 110.126a, is revised to read as follows: * * * * * Note: Mariners anchoring in the special anchorage area should consult applicable ordinances of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency and the County of Marin. These ordinances establish requirements on matters including the anchoring of vessels, placement of moorings, and use of anchored and moored vessels within the special anchorage area. Information on these local agency requirements may be obtained from the Richardson Bay Harbor Administrator. Dated: March 20, 2000. C.D. Wurster, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 00-9219 Filed 4-13-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-U

[Schooner Chandlery]

Thanks for sharing the publication in the Federal Register that gives the the regulatory history of the "note" regarding Richardson Bay in the CFR. Sort of funny, while most places mariners just think--OK, local jurisdiction to deal with, moving right along...In 2000 the USCG must have been thinking that over in Richardson Bay, the "mariners" must be really dense. Here we go, let's point it out to them AGAIN.

So, if you're confused about the jurisdiction/authority of the local ordinances, you shouldn't be. You've just shared hard evidence of the rights of the local jurisdiction.

Repeating myself, this says the note went into the CFR back in 2000 to help mariners using Richardson Bay to understand that there are local ordinances in place to be complied with by those mariners. Those ordinances may or may not pre-date the ?1969? establishment of the anchorage. Since the mariners seemed to be confused about the local ordinances back in 2000 they (the Federal gov't) pointed it out more fully in the note... and here we are 15 years later...with mariners STILL claiming they are confused about the existence of local jurisdiction/authority specifically in Richardson Bay. LOL. Not much changes.

Since all these documents point strongly towards the local control of the anchorage being in place all along, I think you might wish to change your strategy to understanding when/why this local authority went into place (blessed by the state and federal gov't it seems) and then building a logic path of why the conditions are now different than they were then and go from there to achieve your goals. What HAS changed? Do you know? Also, what ARE your goals? Wanting to stick around indefinitely at anchor in Richardson Bay doesn't fly as a goal that any level of government will support so do you have something in mind that CAN be supported by policy makers?

Rather than beating yourself against the wall, why don't you build a case that CAN be supported by a broad range of mariners, the public, and policymakers? It's more effective and has the opportunity to be more rewarding than taking an outside stance that too many people can poke holes in.

FYI ... the following is general background and don't bother reading if you don't feel like it. It's just here for people who might be interested in the entire process of NPRM/Final Rule as well as some thoughts I have on the process as it relates to Richardson Bay.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A link to the Federal Register is here https://www.federalregister.gov/ and
A link to the applicable USCG chapter of the CFR is here: Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters

The federal register notice you copied is a final rule. Final rules always reference the NPRM. A NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) that is published whenever a single sentence or even a word is planned changed/clarified in the CFR is always a good background document to read if one is interested in the particular federal regulation. The final rule (even if just a "we changed happy to glad"type thing or added more information as this is) typically refers to the NPRM for that background information.

Too bad it seems that boaters in Richardson Bay weren't keeping track of USCG federal register publication of NPRM in the 2000 timeframe. When even a happy-to-glad change is published as NPRM, it's a GREAT time to send in comments telling the federal government "whoa, there! this whole thing needs to be gone over--don't just do the happy-to-glad--instead you need to reassess and change the underlying... and request 1. Public meetings, 2. changes in the federal regulations to deal with whatever you perceive the problem to be. In this case, it would have been a great time to make statements about local ordinances infringing on traveling boaters, for example.

This clarification in 2000 was deemed to be not a change of the CFR and had only 1 comment in 2000. Opportunity lost for the boaters using the anchorage in Richarsdson Bay to make themselves heard.

Between the early 1960's and the mid-1980's the USCG did a good job of shirking their responsibilities to mariners by granting local jurisdictions (Port Authorities and the like) control over the use of waters in those jurisdictions. If you're more curious about how it came to be that the federal government ceded control of the anchorage to locals, you'd probably have to go back and look at copies of all the supporting federal register notices for the establishment of the federal anchorage 1969 and follow on publications if there were any.

Prior to the Clinton administration, and Gore's "reinventing government" initiative in the 90's, there wasn't as much "sunshine" shining on the regulatory activities--so what transpired in the 1969 establishment of the anchorage might be hard to figure out--as little as possible will have been published and one might have to be in DC to go look at the files if they weren't scanned by now and available online. 2000 was the height of transparency in federal regulation at DOT. That was right before the Bush administration starting using 9/11 as an excuse to obfuscate anything and everything and accountability to the people of the United States became a low priority.

I am of the impression that, in many cases, the control by the USCG was ceded to the state governments and the states then just let the locals do as they please until things get out of hand. There's another thread on CF about Miami and anchoring restrictions there, right now, with local rules conflicting with state--and in FL the federal control ceded to the state is clear. It seems that in CA there are exceptions--for example control of the entire San Diego Harbor was specifically transferred to the SD Port Authority by the federal government. It's all interesting.

[Wrong]

Schooner Chandlery,

Thanks for your comments on the process and lost opportunity for boaters to have had a voice there. I wonder though if providing notice of the impending action was any more transparent than what we see today? The RBRA doesn't even post pending meeting dates "because there may not be a quorum". And this happens nearly a month before the next meeting will normally be convened. Boaters are rebuffed when the make requests to be on meeting agendas. Latest example is the Spinnaker event. Also, as we expected the question and answer period was run o-time, leaving those of us who had something to say with only two minutes each to speak. After reading a little from one, organizers objected to my distributing my handouts 'before midway through the presentation". Simply said I couldn't hear them and distributed the handouts anyway. The process here is closed and much in the way of details being witheld to minimize resistance. RBRA's focus is on the money first, details later. You know how that works when someone answers your 'how much' question, 'we'll worry about that later'...

As recently as last spring I was hearing folks say the RBRA has no authority... No power... Nada. Fortunately it's authority and power is pretty constrained. For now.

I see you're in Washington D.C. and seem to have more than a modicum of exposure to governance, or at least a good understanding of the decisionmaking/political/policymaking processes. Why so?