Drakes Estero Road Crossing Improvements Environmental

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Drakes Estero Road Crossing Improvements Environmental ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COASTAL WATERSHED RESTORATION – DRAKES ESTERO ROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS Point Reyes National Seashore National Park Service October 13, 2004 Environmental Assessment Point Reyes National Seashore Coastal Watershed Restoration Drakes Estero Road Crossing Improvements Environmental Assessment October 13, 2004 Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Need ...........................................................................................................................................................1 1.3 Project Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................3 1.4 Projects Considered in Cumulative Impacts Analysis .............................................................................................5 1.5 Issues Raised during Project Scoping.....................................................................................................................6 1.6 Impact Topics Addressed in the EA ........................................................................................................................7 1.7 Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Assessment ............................................................................................. 10 1.8 Environmental Compliance Requirements............................................................................................................ 11 2.0 Description of the Project Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Existing Facility Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Alternative Formulation Process ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................................................ 20 2.4 Elements Common to Both Action Alternatives..................................................................................................... 21 2.5 Alternative B: Restore Fish Passage and Minimize Future Maintenance Needs ..................................................24 2.6 Alternative C: Restore Fish Passage and Maximize Long-Term Management Flexibility (Preferred Alternative).................................................................................................................... 25 2.7 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed.................................................................................................................. 27 2.8 Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) ...................................................................................................................... 28 2.9 Identification of Environmentally Preferred Alternative........................................................................................... 29 3.0 Project Setting and Affected Environment ................................................................................................. 41 3.1 Project Setting....................................................................................................................................................... 41 3.2 Affected Environment for Impact Analysis............................................................................................................. 43 4.0 Environmental Consequences...................................................................................................................... 65 4.1 Methods of Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 65 4.2 Impact Analysis by Topic ...................................................................................................................................... 67 5.0 Impacts Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 83 5.1 Geology, Geohazards, and Soils .......................................................................................................................... 83 5.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................. 88 5.3 Soundscapes ........................................................................................................................................................ 90 5.4 Hydrologic and Geomorphic Processes, including Water Quality ......................................................................... 93 5.5 Impacts to floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones.......................................................................................... 100 5.6 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................... 109 5.7 Special Status Species, Critical Habitat, and Essential Fish Habitat................................................................... 110 5.8 Impacts to Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 117 5.9 Impacts to Recreational resources, visitor experience, and aesthetic resources ................................................ 120 5.10 Impacts to public safety and transportation....................................................................................................... 124 6.0 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................................... 129 6.1 Current and Ongoing Actions.............................................................................................................................. 129 6.2 Past Restoration and Monitoring Activities.......................................................................................................... 129 6.3 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................................................................. 129 6.4 Short-term uses versus long-term productivity.................................................................................................... 130 7.0 Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................................ 131 7.1 Consultation Requirements................................................................................................................................. 131 7.2 Persons Consulted.............................................................................................................................................. 132 7.3 Report Preparers ................................................................................................................................................ 132 7.4 Public and Agency Scoping and Summary of Issues Raised.............................................................................. 132 8.0 References ................................................................................................................................................. 133 Appendix A: Special Status Species Table Appendix B: Best Management Practices Project Summary Point Reyes National Seashore proposes replacement or improvements to culverted road crossings at 6 locations within the Drakes Estero Watershed. The need for the project is to repair or replace existing road-crossing facilities (crossings) in a manner that is sustainable ecologically and hydrologically, with infrastructure that will require less maintenance for long-term park operations. Prior to acquisition of the land by the NPS, a network of roads and other infrastructure were constructed to support existing agricultural operations and planned residential development. Culverts comprise many of the park road crossings. Since the Seashore was established, the NPS has continued to manage the existing roads, drainage facilities, and other infrastructure. Many of these facilities are beyond their design life, and are either not compatible with current land use designations (e.g., Wilderness areas) or are in imminent danger of catastrophic failure. This project focuses on 6 separate crossings of drainages and streams in the Drakes Estero Watershed. These 6 project areas fall within 3 coastal subwatersheds, which eventually drain to Drakes Estero and Drakes Bay. The Mt. Vision Road and Estero Road project areas are located on East Schooner Creek, which parallels Sir Francis Drake. The Upper Home Ranch project area is located on North Home Ranch Creek at its junction with Estero Road. The Lower Home Ranch project area is located on Home Ranch Creek at the Home Ranch facility. The remaining 2 project areas (Upper and Lower Laguna) are located on Laguna Creek, where access
Recommended publications
  • River Otter (Lontra Canadensis) Monitoring Report 2019 Marin County, California
    PO Box 103 Web: riverotterecology.org Forest Knolls, CA 94933 Facebook.com/BayAreaOtters 415.342.7956 Instagram: riverotterecology River Otter (Lontra canadensis) Monitoring Report 2019 Marin County, California The River Otter Ecology Project PO Box 103, Forest Knolls, CA 94933 By Megan Isadore and Terence Carroll February 21, 2020 Daniel Dietrich The River Otter Ecology Project 1 February 21, 2020 Background While historical records on river otters in the San Francisco Bay Area are sparse, existing information indicates that river otters had been extirpated from much, if not all, of Marin County by the 1930’s when both Grinnell and trapping records indicate no coastal river otters in Marin and southward. Beginning in 1989, river otters were noticed in coastal Marin County, particularly in Rodeo Lagoon, Walker Creek, and Lagunitas Creek. As apex predators using variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitat types, river otters are sentinel indicators of watershed function and health (Larivière and Walton 1998). They predate a wide variety of native and non-native species in freshwater and marine environments (Penland and Black 2009, Garwood and others 2013). They are susceptible to parasites such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia spp. (Gaydos and others 2007), and Vibrio spp. (Bouley and others 2015), and they may bioaccumulate environmental contaminants such as mercury, metals, organochlorines, and hydrocarbons (Francis and others 1994, Halbrook and others 1996, Bowyer and others 2003). Furthermore, understanding river otter ecology and population status is a critical element of ecosystem management (Bowen 1997, Kruuk 2006, Ben-David and Golden 2009). River otters transport aquatic nutrients to land (Ben-David and others 2004); transmit trophic effects (Crait and Ben-David 2007); and affect the composition and abundance of prey species via trophic subsidy (Garwood and others 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Of 22 Jennifer Stock, Dr
    January 6, 2020, oc010620.mp3 Elephant Seals of Point Reyes: A Success Story of population rebound, expansion and resilience to ocean change Page 1 of 22 Jennifer Stock, Dr. Sarah Allen _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jennifer Stock: You’re listening to Ocean Currents, a podcast brought to you by NOAA’s Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary. This show was originally broadcast on KWMR in Point Reyes Station, California. Thanks for listening! (Music) Jennifer Stock: Welcome to another edition of Ocean Currents. I’m your host Jennifer Stock. On this show we talk with scientists, educators, fishermen, explorers, policymakers, ocean enthusiasts, kids, authors and more all uncovering and learning about the mysterious and vital part of our planet, the blue ocean. I bring this show to you monthly from NOAA's Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, one of four National Marine Sanctuaries in California all working to protect unique and biologically diverse ecosystems. Just offshore of the KWMR listening area, on the West Marin coast, are the Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries which together protect 4,581 square miles of rocky shorelines, sandy seafloors, rocky banks, deep sea canyons and maritime landscapes and artifacts. I’ve been off the air for a while and I’m so excited to dive back into ocean interviews to share with you listeners. I’m always open for suggestions for shows and interviews, so just a little promo at the beginning of the show. Please let me know what you want to hear about. You can email me at [email protected]. It’s a fresh year and I’m just thinking about what we’ll be discussing on Ocean Currents.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Tomales Bay Vessel Management Plan Dated April 2013
    ! ! IMPORTANT!ANNOUNCEMENT! ! Please!note!that!this!final!version!of!the!Tomales!Bay!Vessel!Management!Plan,! which!received!official!approval!by!NOAA!on!August!27,!2013,!includes!some! information!that!is!out!of!date!and!has!since!been!updated!in!other!documents.!Since! the!adoption!of!this!Vessel!Management!Plan,!the!Tomales!Bay!Mooring!Program! Requirements!(Policies!and!Criteria)!have!been!developed!and!finalized.!The!Mooring! Zones!and!mooring!exclusion!areas!described!in!this!plan!also!have!since!been! modified!slightly,!due!to!the!availability!of!more!recent!data!regarding!California! State!Park!jurisdiction,!seagrass!beds!and!aquaculture!lease!areas;!the!updated!zones! and!exclusion!areas!can!be!found!in!the!Tomales!Bay!Mooring!Program! Requirements!(Policies!and!Criteria)!document!as!well!as!on!the!Tomales!Bay! Mooring!Program!Interactive!PDF!Map.! ! For!the!most!recent!information!on!the!Tomales!Bay!Mooring!Program!and!to!access! the!updated!maps!in!the!Tomales!Bay!Mooring!Program!Requirements!(Policies!and! Criteria)!document!or!the!Interactive!PDF!Map!please!visit:! http://farallones.noaa.gov/eco/tomales/mooringprogram.html! ! ! ! ! ! ! TOMALES BAY VESSEL MANAGEMENT PLAN ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! August 2013 ! ! ! ! ! U.S.$DEPARTMENT$OF$COMMERCE$ ! NATIONAL$OCEANIC$AND$ATMOSPHERIC$ADMINISTRATION$ CALIFORNIA$STATE$LANDS$COMMISSION$ NATIONAL$OCEAN$SERVICE$ NATIONAL$MARINE$SANCTUARY$PROGRAM$ ! ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT: ! This document includes two distinct elements: 1) the Tomales Bay Vessel Management Plan (TBVMP), and 2) the accompanying Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental impact assessment portion of the document can be found in Appendix I, directly following the TBVMP, however the EA/IS draws from and refers to the background information and other materials included throughout the TBVMP.
    [Show full text]
  • New Albion P1
    State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 2 of 30 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Site of New Albion P1. Other Identifier: ____ *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Marin and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M. c. Address 1 Drakes Beach Road City Inverness Zip 94937 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) Site bounded by 38.036° North latitude, -122.590° West longitude, 38.030° North ° latitude, and -122.945 West longitude. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Site of Francis Drake’s 1579 encampment called “New Albion” by Drake. Includes sites of Drake’s fort, the careening of the Golden Hind, the abandonment of Tello’s bark, and the meetings with the Coast Miwok peoples. Includes Drake’s Cove as drawn in the Hondius Broadside map (ca. 1595-1596) which retains very high integrity. P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) Portus Novae Albionis *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH16-Other Historic Archaeological Site DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 3 of 30 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Site of New Albion P1.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Utility Honorees Utility of the Future Today
    2016 Utility Honorees Utility of the Future Today 1 The partners of the Utility of the Future Today are pleased to present the inaugural program’s 61 public and private utilities from across the U.S., Canada, and Denmark selected by a peer committee of utility leaders from an impressive number of first year entries. The recipients were recognized and honored during a September 27 ceremony held in conjunction with WEFTEC 2016 in New OrleansWEF’s 89th annual technical exhibition and conferenceas well as a number of commensurate events sponsored by the partners. The recipients received a display flag and a special certificate to further identify and promote their outstanding achievement as a Utility of the Future Today. The following 61 utilities have met the criteria for Utility of the Future Today by meeting the Organizational Culture requirement plus at least one of the Activities identified above. Recognized Activities are indicated for each utility as identified by a and are listed in alphabetical order. 2 Table of Contents Background 6 Program Purpose 7 Aarhus Vand, Denmark 8 Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, NM 17 Alexandria Renew Enterprises, VA 23 Avon Lake Regional Water, OH 34 Baltimore City Department of Public Works, MD 38 Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, NJ 50 Charlotte Water, NC 61 City of Cedar Rapids, IA 71 City of Fayetteville, AR 76 City of Fond du Lac, WI 80 City of Grand Rapids, MI 86 City of Gresham, OR 94 City of Los Angeles – LA Sanitation, CA 99 City of Roseville, CA 108 City of San
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Report for Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell
    Chapter 6 Responses in Marine Habitats Sea Level Rise: Intertidal organisms will respond to sea level rise by shifting their distributions to keep pace with rising sea level. It has been suggested that all but the slowest growing organisms will be able to keep pace with rising sea level (Harley et al. 2006) but few studies have thoroughly examined this phenomenon. As in soft sediment systems, the ability of intertidal organisms to migrate will depend on available upland habitat. If these communities are adjacent to steep coastal bluffs it is unclear if they will be able to colonize this habitat. Further, increased erosion and sedimentation may impede their ability to move. Waves: Greater wave activity (see 3.3.2 Waves) suggests that intertidal and subtidal organisms may experience greater physical forces. A number of studies indicate that the strength of organisms does not always scale with their size (Denny et al. 1985; Carrington 1990; Gaylord et al. 1994; Denny and Kitzes 2005; Gaylord et al. 2008), which can lead to selective removal of larger organisms, influencing size structure and species interactions that depend on size. However, the relationship between offshore significant wave height and hydrodynamic force is not simple. Although local wave height inside the surf zone is a good predictor of wave velocity and force (Gaylord 1999, 2000), the relationship between offshore Hs and intertidal force cannot be expressed via a simple linear relationship (Helmuth and Denny 2003). In many cases (89% of sites examined), elevated offshore wave activity increased force up to a point (Hs > 2-2.5 m), after which force did not increase with wave height.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental History and Oysters at Point Reyes National Seashore
    Restoring the Past: Environmental History and Oysters at Point Reyes National Seashore Timothy Babalis Since its inception more than 40 years ago, environmental history has matured into a respected, if somewhat nebulous, discipline in academic circles but has so far received less attention within public land management agencies such as the National Park Service.1 This is unfortunate, because environmental history can provide information of great practical interest to resource managers as well as offering a valuable perspective on management prac- tices. The singular characteristic which distinguishes environmental history from other his- torical methodologies is the acknowledgement that history happens in places. Like geogra- phers, whose field is closely related, environmental historians consider the spatial dimension of history to be just as important as its temporal. As a result, the physical environment is one of environmental history’s principal subjects, along with the usual human actors, political events, and cultural expressions of traditional history. But environmental history also acknowledges the active capacity of the environment to influence and form human history,as well as being the place where that history unfolds. Environmental historians study the recip- rocal relationship between human societies and the physical environments they inhabit. As one prominent environmental historian has written, “When I use the term ‘environmental history,’I mean specifically the history of the consequences of human actions on the environ- ment and the reciprocal consequences of an altered nature for human society.”2 While most environmental historians agree on this basic formula, the field quickly diverges in a bewildering number of directions and becomes increasingly difficult to catego- rize or define.
    [Show full text]
  • Tomales Bay Harbor Seals: a Colony at Risk, 1992
    THIRD BIENNIAL STATE OF TOMALES BAY CONFERENCE October 24, 1992 Tomales Bay Harbor Seals: A Colony at Risk? Sarah G. Allen, Point Reyes Bird Observatory 4990 Shoreline Hwy, Stinson Beach Ca 94970 Mary Ellen King, Audubon Canyon Ranch 4900 Shoreline Hwy, Stinson Beach Ca 94970 INTRODUCTION Conservation, management, and protection of harbor seats come under the purview of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (Public Law 92-522). A primary directive of the MMPA is to protect marine mammal stocks from declining below their optimum sustainable population. To fulfill this directive in California, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), has been conducting annual, state-wide, aerial surveys of harbor seals to assess the status of the population. Harbor seal colonies along the Point Reyes coastline represent about 20% of the estimated breeding population of the state of California, and consequently, have received attention from CDFG and NMFS. In cooperation with these agencies and supported by the Point Reyes National Seashore and the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, S. Allen has been monitoring harbor seals in Point Reyes since 1982. Audubon Canyon Ranch has supported surveys in Tomales Bay conducted by M. King and volunteers since 1991. Tomales Bay is one of several locations along the Point Reyes Peninsula where harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) congregate onshore. Resting areas or "haul-out" sites in Point Reyes are found in remote areas on tidal sand bars, sandy pocket beaches, and offshore tidal ledges or islands (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • MARIN COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Land Use Plan
    MARIN COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Land Use Plan Board of Supervisors Adopted August 25, 2015 & April 19, 2016 1. The changes approved by the California Coastal Commission on May 15, 2014 agreed to by the County have been “accepted” (i.e. not shown in track changes) 2. Modification to LUP text approved by the Marin County Board of Supervisor on August 25, 2015 and April 19, 206 are shown in blue text (double-underlined for additions and italized strike out for deletions). Marin County Board of Supervisors Judy Arnold, President, District #5 Kathrin Sears, Vice-President, District #3 Katie Rice, 2nd Vice President, District #2 Susan L. Adams, District #1 Steve Kinsey, District #4 Prepared by the Marin County Community Development Agency Brian C. Crawford, Director This report is funded in part with qualified outer continental shelf oil and gas revenues by the Coastal Impact Assistance Program, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior. Marin County Local Coastal Program Project Staff Tom Lai, Assistant Director Jack Liebster, Principal Planner Kristin Drumm, Senior Planner Christine Gimmler, Senior Planner Jeremy Tejirian, Principal Planner Alisa Stevenson, Assistant Planner Suzanne Thorsen, Planner Steve Scholl, Consulting Planner Copies of this report may be obtained by contacting the Marin County Community Development Agency 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308 San Rafael, CA 94903 Phone (415) 499-6269 [email protected] www.MarinLCP.org ii Land Use Plan Amendments Marin County Local Coastal Program Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Interpretation of the Land Use Plan ......................................................................................................... 5 Natural Systems and Agriculture Agriculture (AG) ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 4.4 Biological Resources
    Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network Master Plan EIR Section 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section addresses biological resources issues related to the proposed MBSST Network project described in Section 2.0, Project Description. A variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats are present along the three distinct trail reaches (northern, central and Watsonville reaches) of the proposed MBSST Network. The proposed MBSST Network ranges in elevation from sea level to approximately 30 to 40 feet above sea level throughout the corridor. Portions of the proposed project are located within the Coastal Zone of Santa Cruz County. Rincon Consultants, Inc. biologists visited the site on December 3, 11, and 12, 2012 and conducted reconnaissance-level floral and wildlife surveys along the proposed MBSST Network. To support the field investigation, data on biological resources were collected from numerous sources, including relevant literature, maps of natural resources, and data on special- status species and sensitive habitat information obtained from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly the California Department of Fish and Game), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (2003; queried August 2012), the California Native Plant Society online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (2012), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) (2012b). The USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (2012a) and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; 2012c) were also queried. 4.4.1 Setting a. Habitats. The proposed MBSST Network contains 12 habitats mapped by the CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) habitat classification system (Table 4.4-1).
    [Show full text]
  • Geology at Point Reyes National Seashore and Vicinity, California: a Guide to San Andreas Fault Zone and the Point Reyes Peninsula
    Geology at Point Reyes National Seashore and Vicinity, California: A Guide to San Andreas Fault Zone and the Point Reyes Peninsula Trip highlights: San Andreas Fault, San Gregorio Fault, Point Reyes, Olema Valley, Tomales Bay, Bolinas Lagoon, Drakes Bay, Salinian granitic rocks, Franciscan Complex, Tertiary sedimentary rocks, headlands, sea cliffs, beaches, coastal dunes, Kehoe Beach, Duxbury Reef, coastal prairie and maritime scrublands Point Reyes National Seashore is an ideal destination for field trips to examine the geology and natural history of the San Andreas Fault Zone and the North Coast of California. The San Andreas Fault Zone crosses the Point Reyes Peninsula between Bolinas Lagoon in the south and Tomales Bay in the north. The map below shows 13 selected field trip destinations where the bedrock, geologic structures, and landscape features can be examined. Geologic stops highlight the significance of the San Andreas and San Gregorio faults in the geologic history of the Point Reyes Peninsula. Historical information about the peninsula is also presented, including descriptions of the aftermath of the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. Figure 9-1. Map of the Point Reyes National Seashore area. Numbered stops include: 1) Visitor Center and Earthquake Trail, 2) Tomales Bay Trail, 3) Point Reyes Lighthouse, 4) Chimney Rock area, 5) Drakes Beach, 6) Tomales Bay State Park, 7) Kehoe Beach, 8) McClures Beach, 9) Mount Vision on Inverness Ridge, 10) Limantour Beach, 11) Olema Valley, 12) Palomarin Beach, 13) Duxbury Reef 14) Bolinas Lagoon/Stinson Beach area. Features include: Point Reyes (PR), Tomales Bay (TB), Drakes Estero (DE), Bolinas Lagoon (BL), Point Reyes Station (PRS), San Rafael (SR), and San Francisco (SF), Lucas Valley Road (LVR), and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (SFDB).
    [Show full text]
  • Advocate Protecting and Sustaining the Unique Lands, Waters, and Biodiversity of West Marin Since 1971
    ADVOCATE PROTECTING AND SUSTAINING THE UNIQUE LANDS, WATERS, AND BIODIVERSITY OF WEST MARIN SINCE 1971 ACTION ALERTS, PROGRAMS, EVENTS, VOLUNTEERING & GIVING WINTER 2019 1 Executive Director’s Note MISSION To protect and sustain the unique lands, In West Marin, we are already feeling the impacts of a changing climate. Our sea levels are waters, and biodiversity of West Marin. rising, extreme storms are causing flooding, and extended dry seasons are increasing our risk of catastrophic wildfires. As a result, our communities are left with the difficult task of managing VISION our response and adaptation efforts around this crisis. To provide long-term protection and conservation of the unique ecosystems We can’t count on our federal administration to provide climate leadership; instead we witness and rural communities of West Marin to the active dismantling and weakening of environmental protections and denial of the climate serve as a foundation for environmental crisis. It is left to our local communities to proactively engage to shift policies, raise awareness, protection for future generations. and connect with one another to ensure resilience in these uncertain times. EAC’s long-standing work to protect West Marin’s lands, waters, and biodiversity through GUIDING PRINCIPLES advocacy, engagement, and education has become even more critical, as we face the biggest social and environmental challenge of our time. ADVOCACY Use grassroots strategies to research While our climate emergency is overwhelming and terrifying, we must remain hopeful and and publicize local environmental collaborative, ready to face the challenge instead of focusing on negativity and despair. We can issues facing our community to inform, act locally to advocate for meaningful changes in Marin County and California to mitigate the empower, and educate stakeholders and worst impacts, change behaviors, and address systemic problems.
    [Show full text]