Transcript San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project

San Francisco Bay
Subtidal Habitat Goals Project
Marilyn Latta
North Bay Watershed Association
Novato, CA
June 3, 2011
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
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)
Ecosystem services identified for the SF Bay Subtidal Goals Project include only
those that are not directly extractive or destructive of habitat.
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
Rock Habitats
Artificial Structures
Soft substrate: sand
Macroalgal Beds
Photo credits: www.bluewaterimages.com
Shellfish Beds
Soft Substrate:Mud/ shell mix
Subtidal Habitat Conceptual Models
Science Goals and Research Questions
Wim Kimmerer
Consultant Projects
Stressor Narrative Papers
• Andrew Cohen, San Francisco Estuary Institute
Subtidal Economic Evaluation Report
• Battelle
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
GIS Maps Being Produced
• Subtidal Habitat Types
• Habitat Stressors
• Informed Siting of Projects
September 2009
San Rafael
Richmond
Oakland
San Francisco
0
0
2.5
Kilometers
2.5
Miles
California Department of Fish & Game
San Francisco Bay Bathymetry (Feet)
0-3
3 - 12
12 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 55
55 - 65
65 - 80
80 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 282
1
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Restoration Sites
Current Estimated Range of Subtidal Oyster Distribution
Oyster Restoration Site
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Habitat
2
Documented Intertidal Oysters
Creosote Pilings (DRAFT - for graphics only)
Road
Agar (Gracilaria) Habitat
1
3
4
Boyer (unpub.)
Harris, 2004;Smithsonian/UC Davis; Attoe, 2008; traylor-Dutra; Grosholz, 2008; Caltrans, 2009.
Merkel, 2003, 2009.
NOAA, ORR, Environmental Sensitivity Index, 2006 .
2
3
4
Examples of Goals
Science 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 Goals
Climate Change
Invasive Species
Oil Spill
Marine Debris
Public Education
Integration
Subtidal-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
Thank You
Marilyn Latta, Project Manager
Subtidal Habitat Goals Project
State Coastal Conservancy
510.286.4157
[email protected]