Coastal Policy Solutions

Draft Eelgrass Protection & Management Plan (EPMP) for Richardson’s

Presentation by: Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg, President, Coastal Policy Solutions Presentation to: Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) Board of Directors coastalpolicysolutions.com Coastal Policy Solutions

Outline: • About Richardson’s Bay (RB) • Environmental importance of eelgrass • Existing boundaries in RB • What is the EPMP? Why are we doing it? • What is in the draft report? • EPMP Framework • Development of the EPMP • Summary of stakeholder feedback • Spatial Analysis • Plan Elements – Proposed Eelgrass Protection Zone; monitoring and adaptive management; future moorings • Final thoughts/next steps • Discussion Coastal Policy Solutions About Richardson’s Bay • 3,000-acre bay in Marin Co • Ancestral home of Coast Miwok • Today: Sausalito, Mill Valley, Tiburon, Belvedere, Marin Co • Large ships anchoring since at least 1890s • 19th/20th shoreline development (marinas, industry, residences) = loss of historic bayland

Photo: Sausalito Historical Society http://www.sausalitohistoricalsociety.com/sausalito-history Coastal Policy Solutions About Richardson’s Bay • Today: critical natural resource bc of remaining eelgrass beds • 10s of 1000s of migratory/waterbirds (Globally Important Area) • , marine mammals (harbor seals, porpoises) • Overlap between designated Anchoring Area and eelgrass beds = natural resource conflict

Photo: Surf Scoters in Richardson’s Bay, courtesy of Audubon CA Coastal Policy Solutions Environmental Importance of Eelgrass • Seagrass, flowering plant • Shallow water bays and • for baby fish, Dungeness , food for • Spawning habitat for herring • Last commercial in SFB • Reduces erosion, stabilizes shoreline, sequesters carbon, Eelgrass covered in herring eggs. reduces ocean acidification Photo: Department of Fish and Coastal Policy Solutions

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/environment/article/Underwater-meadows-of-California-seagrass-found-16065560.php Coastal Policy Solutions

Threats Facing Eelgrass: • Human activity: shoreline development, dredging, anchoring • Climate change: changes in salinity, temperature, depth (sea level rise) • Water quality: nutrient overload, contamination, turbidity • Probably not as big of an issue in Richardson’s Bay – water quality testing shows pretty good WQ Coastal Policy Solutions

Eelgrass in Richardson’s Bay: • Second largest bed in SF, variable in size (~300-800 acres) • Ongoing damage: Up to 80 acres removed due to anchor scour or “crop circles”1, approx. 2x size of • Anchor scour is a threat to eelgrass regardless of length of stay/occupancy (though longer generally = worse scour) and the bed needs protection even from visiting vessels • Certain anchor/mooring techniques can reduce damage, but to adequately protect need to move anchoring activities out of the eelgrass bed

1Kelly, J. J., Orr, D., & Takekawa, J. Y. (2019). Quantification of damage to eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds and evidence-based management strategies for boats anchoring in Bay. Environmental management, 64(1), 20-26. Photo courtesy of Audubon California Coastal Policy Solutions Existing Boundaries in RB

Jurisdictional Boundaries Use Boundaries Coastal Policy Solutions What is the EPMP? Why are we doing it? • RBRA June 2020 Transition Plan, Policy Direction #5: • “…develop eelgrass protection measures and consider specific eelgrass restoration funding and projects” • “The potential designation of up to four zones in RB for varying levels of vessel usage and eelgrass restoration and protection” • Coastal Policy Solutions retained to implement Policy Direction #5 through development of an EPMP Coastal Policy Solutions EPMP – What is in it? 1. Introduction: • Background • About RB • Eelgrass in RB • Regulatory/Policy Context 2. EPMP Framework • Development of the EPMP • Summary of stakeholder feedback • Spatial Analysis • Plan elements Coastal Policy Solutions Development of EPMP

Policy review

Spatial analysis

Stakeholder Engagement Coastal Policy Solutions Development of EPMP 1. Policy review • McAteer Petris Act • Plan • RB Special Area Plan • CA Eelgrass Mitigation Policy • BCDC Enforcement Committee direction • RBRA June Transition Plan Coastal Policy Solutions Development of EPMP 1. Policy review 2. Spatial analysis • GIS Analysis: eelgrass frequency distribution, herring spawning Coastal Policy Solutions Development of EPMP 1. Policy review 2. Spatial analysis 3. Stakeholder engagement Coastal Policy Solutions Development of EPMP 1. Policy review 2. Spatial analysis 3. Stakeholder engagement • Five 1.5 hr Zoom listening sessions • Targets: environmental groups, scientists, elected officials, marina operators, resource/regulatory agencies, RB mariners • 40+ people, 20+ organizations • No mariner participation in listening sessions despite robust, targeted outreach • Reviewed 2018/2019 community feedback from mariners Coastal Policy Solutions Development of EPMP 1. Policy review 2. Spatial analysis 3. Stakeholder engagement • Targeted outreach to mariners: • Links shared at three RBRA meetings, posted to social media, and shared directly with key members of the mariner community. • Mariner-focused Zoom listening sessions held on three separate occasions (two during the day, including during and after free lunch provided by Sausalito Presbyterian Church, and one in the evening). • Email address set up where people could email their thoughts directly to project consultants. No emails were received. • Significant input rec’d during Mooring Feasibility Study – reviewed here. Coastal Policy Solutions Summary of Stakeholder Feedback

Three main themes:

1. Threats to RB to consider during EPMP development 2. Uses to consider during EPMP development 3. Additional Feedback

Photo credit: Marin Independent Journal Coastal Policy Solutions Summary of Feedback by Theme (1 of 3): Threats

Damage from Loss of maritime Natural fluctuation Sea level rise and anchors, chains, culture, in eelgrass other impacts of and other ground herring/fishing determining static climate change tackle culture boundaries

Lack of awareness Shading and other Public safety Marine debris about importance impacts from docks of eelgrass

Stormwater Regulatory burdens runoff/water on marina quality operators Coastal Policy Solutions Summary of Feedback by Theme (2 of 3): Uses

RB as a sailing Recreation, Richardson’s Bay is destination for especially non- Education an anchorage cruisers/visiting motorized vessels

Eelgrass restoration and Marinas Science/research Birds and wildlife bed migration with sea level rise

Beneficial reuse of Opportunities for /dredge deeper water off material Belvedere/Tiburon Coastal Policy Solutions Summary of Feedback by Theme (3 of 3): Add’l

Should include Vessel Mooring program: Need for spatial monitoring on enforcement will analysis, not just ecological scale Safer, better for be key to success planning (10 years+) eelgrass; should be considered now rather than a Eelgrass separate planning Include an Partnerships Don’t make marina restoration and process down the alternatives important operation harder bed migration with line; visitor-serving, analysis revenuesea level generating rise Coastal Policy Solutions Spatial Analysis

• Chart – Used as base layer so Eelgrass any recs based on how space is Frequency NOAA Nautical Distribution – used by mariners Chart #18649 Years: 2003, 2009, 2013, • Eelgrass – Insight re where 2014, and 2019 eelgrass most often occurs in RB, manages for spatial variability of Herring bed across years Spawning Combined Occurrences – eelgrass + Years: 2013- herring data • Herring – Insight re other 2020 species use RB, protection of ecosystem function Eelgrass Occurrence Frequency

Eelgrass Frequency Distribution – Years: 2003, 2009, 2013, 2014, and 2019

Notes: Data are derived from side- scan sonar surveys conducted by Merkel and Associates in years 2003, 2009, 2013, 2014, and 2019. The data layer exhibits the average extent of mapped eelgrass during survey years, regardless of cover class (percent cover/density).

Figure 6- Eelgrass frequency distribution in Richardson's Bay (2003-2019) Eelgrass Herring Frequency Spawning Distribution – Occurrences – Years: 2003, Years: 2013- 2009, 2013, 2020 2014, and 2019

Notes: Each purple polygon represents one spawning event. Multiple spawning events occur during each year. Areas of darker purple indicate repeated spawning events. Eelgrass Frequency Combined Distribution – eelgrass + Years: 2003, herring2009, 2013, data 2014, and 2019

Notes: The same eelgrass and herring data were used again, this time overlayed to provide a view of combined spatial use. Showed very similar patterns of use. Coastal Policy Solutions

Plan Elements

1. Proposed Eelgrass Protection Zone/No Anchoring Area 2. Monitoring and adaptive management 3. Future possible mooring program Coastal Policy Solutions Plan Elements – Proposed Eelgrass Protection Zone/No Anchoring Area

Description: • EPZ/NAA proposed northwest of a line from Channel Marker 4 to Audubon Sanctuary • Protects 90% of eelgrass from anchor damage • Using existing boundaries/markers keeps things simple • ONLY applies to anchoring; all other activities (kayaking, sailing, motoring, fishing, marinas, recreation, etc.) unaffected Coastal Policy Solutions Plan Elements – Proposed Eelgrass Protection Zone/No Anchoring Area

Major changes: • Reduces 72 hr Anchorage Area by ~2/3 • Reduces 10 hr anchoring (Belvedere water) by ~ 1/3 • Limits the number of boats the anchorage can support at one time • Expands area available for non- anchoring activities (e.g., recreation) • No change to shore access (Turney St.) but removes anchoring in area closest to boat ramp Coastal Policy Solutions Plan Elements – Proposed Eelgrass Protection Zone/No Anchoring Area

Considerations: • Proposed EPZ/NAA aligns closely with 5 ft MLLW contour – many transiting vessels can not anchor in such shallow water • Majority of “Safe and Seaworthy” vessels already outside EPZ/NAA • Boats can be anchored more closely together than they are; likely to meet demand for 72 hr anchorage Coastal Policy Solutions Plan Elements – Proposed Eelgrass Protection Zone/No Anchoring Area

Alternative B (NOT proposed): • Aligns with 6 foot MLLW contour • Protects 100% of bed • Reasons for rejecting: • Further reduced area for anchoring • Signage would be difficult Coastal Policy Solutions

Plan Elements – Monitoring & Adaptive Management

Proposed (pending funding): • Annual – Aerial photography & GIS of anchorage area, quantify damage/regrowth; longer of 10 years or 80% recovery • Every 3 years – Sidescan sonar (or equivalent) bathymetric mapping, quantify density & spatial extent; continue until 80% recovery then decrease to every 5 years • Water Quality – Continue twice/year monitoring with RWQCB • Five Year Adaptive Management Review – Shift accordingly to ensure 90% of bed protected, may increase/decrease EPZ/NAA Coastal Policy Solutions

Plan Elements – Possible Future Mooring Program

• EPMP consistent with future mooring efforts in consideration of 2019 Mooring Study • Transitioning anchorage à mooring program has many benefits: • Higher density of boats • Improved public safety • Revenue generating • Protect bayfloor from anchor scour • Easier enforcement of time limits • No Mooring Program proposed here Final Thoughts/Next Steps: Feedback, requested changes