Marilyn LattaNorth Bay Watershed Association

Novato, CAJune 3, 2011

San Francisco Bay

Subtidal Habitat Goals Project

Objectives of Subtidal Goals Report

• Regional 50-year vision to improve subtidal habitats• Non-regulatory, interagency, collaborative approach• Science goals to address data gaps• Protection goals to maintain quality and function• Specific restoration targets based on phased

approach• Audience: Resource managers, academics, non-

profits, etc.

Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services identified for the SF Bay Subtidal Goals Project include only those that are not directly extractive or destructive of habitat.

Definition:The benefits people derive, either directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions (e.g., harvest, sense of place, recreation, visual aesthetics, nutrient cycling, primary production)

Project Vision

Achieve a net improvement of the San Francisco Bay’s subtidal ecosystem over the next 50 years through restoration, science, and protection.

To achieve this improvement, the project proposes:• Increasing the quantity of desired but currently limited habitats;

• Emphasizing support of native species;

• Increasing our understanding of the physical and biological processes that affect subtidal habitats and species.

Guiding Principles

• Subtidal and intertidal habitats• Precautionary approach• Science, restoration, protection• Avoids prioritization of habitats• Adaptive management approach• 10 year review in 2020

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Artificial Structures

Shellfish Beds

Soft substrate: sand

Soft Substrate:Mud/ shell mix

Rock Habitats

Macroalgal Beds

Photo credits: www.bluewaterimages.com

Subtidal Habitat Conceptual ModelsScience Goals and Research Questions

Wim Kimmerer

Consultant Projects

Eelgrass Recommendations Report• Katharyn Boyer, SFSU• Sandy Wyllie-Echeverria, UW

Shellfish Recommendations Report• Chela Zabin, UC Davis, SERC• Ted Grosholz, UC Davis

Creosote and Artificial Structures Assessment• San Francisco Estuary Institute

Stressor Narrative Papers• Andrew Cohen, San Francisco Estuary InstituteSubtidal Economic Evaluation Report• Battelle

Oakland

Benicia

Richmond

San Rafael

San Francisco

September 2009

0 2.5

Miles

0 2.5

Kilometers

California Department of Fish & Game San Francisco Bay Bathymetry (Feet)

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Restoration Sites1

Oyster Restoration Site

Documented Intertidal Oysters2

Creosote Pilings (DRAFT - for graphics only)

Road

Current Estimated Range of Subtidal Oyster Distribution

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Habitat3

Agar (Gracilaria) Habitat4

1Boyer (unpub.)2Harris, 2004;Smithsonian/UC Davis; Attoe, 2008; traylor-Dutra; Grosholz, 2008; Caltrans, 2009.3Merkel, 2003, 2009.4NOAA, ORR, Environmental Sensitivity Index, 2006 .

0 - 33 - 1212 - 2020 - 30

30 - 4040 - 5555 - 6565 - 80

80 - 100100 - 150150 - 282

GIS Maps Being Produced

• Subtidal Habitat Types• Habitat Stressors• Informed Siting of Projects

Examples of GoalsScience Goals

• Develop mechanisms to adapt to climate change.

• Understand the factors controlling the development of oyster beds.

• Determine suitable methods for protecting mudflats and beaches.

Protection Goals

• Protect existing eelgrass habitat through no net loss to existing beds.

• Consider the potential ecological effects of contaminated sediments when developing, planning, designing and constructing restoration projects or other projects that disturb sediments.

Restoration Goals

Focus on quantifiable

and regionally-specific targets

• Increase native eelgrass within 8,000 acres of potential suitable subtidal area through a phased pilot project approach.

• Promote pilot projects to remove artificial structures and creosote pilings at targeted sites, in combination with Living Shoreline techniques.

• Reduce habitat fragmentation and increase connectivity across upland, intertidal, and subtidal habitats.

Cross-Habitat GoalsClimate Change

Invasive Species

Oil Spill

Marine Debris

Public Education

IntegrationSubtidal-Wetland Design Integration

Living Shorelines

Intrinsic Subtidal Connection to Wetlands

Transition Zones on Both Edges

Upland transition Subtidal transition

Wetland edges: sand bars, shell beds, kelp and eelgrass fringe, rocky intertidal

Living Shorelines: A soft bioengineering approach

Living Shorelines: Issues for study in SF Bay• Scale: what acreage is needed to slow wave action?• Suitability: must be matched to site conditions• Permitting: fill considerations in the subtidal zone• Monitoring: functional connections between habitats• Pilot: test effectiveness thru experimental designs

Katharyn Boyer, SFSU

Robert Abbott, Environ

Products

Subtidal Habitat Goals Report

Web Accessible Information:− Full Goals Report− All Appendix Reports− Habitat Information− Interactive Mapping Tool− News and Updates

Marilyn Latta, Project ManagerSubtidal Habitat Goals ProjectState Coastal Conservancy510.286.4157mlatta@scc.ca.gov

Thank You